BANCROFT 

LIBRARY 
«• 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


of  the  Republic 


1835-1845 


Dr.  Alex  Dicnst 

Temple,  Texas 
1909 


Prcf 


ace 


The  citizen  of  Texas,  traveling  in  the  United  States,  is 
often-times  shocked  to  find  that  comparatively  few  people  are 
aware  that  Texas  for  ten  years  was  an  independent  Republic. 
However,  this  ignorance  is  by  no  means  confined  to  people  out- 
side of  Texas;  even  informed  Texans  are  surprised  to  learn  that 
Texas  in  her  struggle  for  independence,  and  the  maintaining  of 
that  independence,  possessed  a  Navy,  powerful  enough  to  aid 
her  in  the  struggle,  and  to  successfully  combat  every  effort  of 
Mexico  to  regain  her  territory. 

While  in  comparison  with  the  great  navies  of  to-day,  the 
navy  of  the  infant  Republic  was  exceedingly  small,  yet  it  was 
greater  in  its  infancy,  and  better  organized,  than  was  the  navy 
of  the  United  States  in  1776,  and  the  first  year  of  that  memo- 
rable struggle  for  independence.  The  part  that  the  Texas  Navy 
acted  from  1835  to  1846  has  never  been  related.  The  leading 
historians  of  Texas  repeatedly  testify  that  the  navywas  a  val- 
uable factor  in  securing  Texas  independence,  but  while  admit- 
ting this  much,  they  almost  without  exception  fail  to  chronicle 
any  events  in  which  the  navy  participated;  nothing  is  said  re- 
garding its  organization,  maintenance,  or  successes,  and  the  few 
historians  that  do  give  it  notice  have  allowed  numerous  errors 
to  creep  into  their  statements,  and  succeeding  historians  have 
repeated  the  errors. 

While  students  may  differ  in  opinion  as  to  what  would 
have  ultimately  been  the  fate  of  the  country  we  now  call  Texas, 
none  will  dispute  the  assertion  that  Texas  could  not  at  the 
time  have  won  her  independence  and  maintaind  it  as  she  did, 
without  the  navy.  This  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that  I  shall 
repeatedly  prove  in  this  history.  Without  a  navy  to  protect 
her  extensive  coast,  transports  laden  with  thousands  of  Mexican 
soldiers,  and  thousands  of  tons  of  provisions,  could  have  been 
landed  in  Texas  at  all  times  by  Mexico,  and  would  have  been 
landed;  and  this  overwhelming  force  would  have  conquered 
the  Texans.  Furthermore,  Texas  could  have  been  certain  of 
no  supplies  from  New  Orleans,  whence  came  three-fourths  of 
all  her  troops,  supplies,  and  cash,  if  the  carrying  vessels  in  the 
trade  between  New  Orleans  and  Texas  had  not  been  reasonably 
sure  of  protection  against  Mexican  war  vessels.  Few  merchants 
in  New  Orleans  would  have  been  willing  to  hazard  their  pre- 
cious cargoes,  with  the  probability  of  a  Mexican  war  vessel  cap- 
turing the  same,  which  happened  at  times  even  with  a  Texas 


Navy,  and  without  such  a  Navy,  would  have  been  the  rule. 
Another  great  benefit  of  the  navy  to  the  struggling  revolution- 
ists was  the  revenue  derived  from  its  prizes  and  captures,  and 
by  the  Government  acknowledged  as  an  invaluable  contribution 
in  time  of  need.  Another  way  in  which  it  was  a  help  was  the 
able  way  in  which  it  blocked  the  enemy's  ports,  and  harassed 
the  commerce  of  Mexico,  and  by  this  means  proving  to  the 
United  States,  and  leading  foreign  governments,  the  stability 
of  the  young  Republic,  and  her  ability  to  keep  the  independence 
she  had  won  at  San  Jacinto.  The  ability  thus  demonstrated 
to  the  world  won  her  recognition  as  an  independent  Republic 
by  foreign  powers. 

My  attention  was  attracted  to  this  field  of  labor  many 
years  ago,  by  the  numerous  references  I  found  to  the  Texas  Navy 
in  the  files  of  New  Orleans  newspapers  of  1835-45.  As  early 
as  1897  I  was  concentrating  my  efforts  in  securing  Texas  his- 
torical material  bearing  upon  the  navy.  In  October,  1900,  in 
an  article  on  the  value  of  the  New  Orleans  newspaper  files  of 
the  Texas  Revolutionary  period,  which  appeared  in  the  Quar- 
terly of  the  Texas  State  Historical  Association,  I  made  the 
statement  that  I  would  write  a  history  of  the  navy  of  the 
Revolution.  Upon  further  reflection  I  concluded  to  write  the 
history  of  the  navy  throughout  its  existence,  and  this,  necessitat- 
ing much  more  research  and  labor,  has  occupied  all  my  spare 
moments  for  the  past  few  years.  Had  I  written  this  preface 
before  I  finished  the  work,  I  should  no  doubt  have  remarked 
that  it  was  a  "labor  of  love" — writing  the  preface  at  the  close 
of  nine  years  of  unremitting  labor,  irksome,  tedious,  with  the 
drudgery  of  copying,  correcting,  and  so  forth,  the  expression 
would  be  anything  but  truthful;  only  those  who  have  labored 
similarly  can  appreciate  fully  what  toil  and  self-denial  are  re- 
quired to  gather,  classify,  record,  reflect  upon,  and  select  the 
material  for  such  a  work  as  this.  I  would  not  have  attempted 
to  carry  out  the  work  if  I  had  thought  anyone  else  would  per- 
form it;  but  having  much  valuable  material  bearing  upon  the 
subject,  and  my  inclination  leaning  that  way,  I  was  compelled 
by  the  responsibility  I  felt  to  write  what  I  have,  in  order  that 
this  much  of  the  history  of  our  beloved  Texas  should  not  be 
lost. 

As  to  my  qualifications  for  the  work  I  have  here  under- 
taken, I  have  none  to  boast  of,  save  a  deep  love  for  the  per- 
petuation of  the  daring  and  heroic  deeds  of  the  first  American 
pioneers  of  Texas.  Not  a  native  Texan,  though  coming  here 
before  I  was  twenty-one,  and  not  related  to  any  character  in 
this  history,  and  not  having  been  acquainted  with  a  single  sur- 
vivor, and  only  in  one  instance  being  acquainted  with  the  de- 
scendant of  such,  the  writer  of  this  book  has  an  advantage  that 


a  contemporaneous  historian  can  not  possess.  I  have  been  free 
from  prejudice,  and  not  biased  by  friendship  or  ties  of  blood 
to  view  any  act,  save  on  the  principles  of  truth.  In  the  course 
of  the  history,  necessarily,  conflicting  evidences  from  most  re- 
liable sources  at  times  occur;  in  such  cases  I  have  given  the  gen- 
tlemen on  both  sides  the  credit  of  being  sincere  in  their  state- 
ments— unless  unquestionable  proof  shows  the  contrary;  it  has 
been  my  aim  to  present  controversial  matter  from  the  view- 
point of  each  individual,  and  let  the  reader  form  his  own  con- 
clusions, if  there  is  any  doubt.  Where  the  original  documents 
have  been  accessible,  and  the  proof  is  clearly  for  one  man  or 
another,  I  have  never  hesitated  to  declare,  "Thou  art  the  man," 
and  having  the  opportunity  to  read  all  the  documents  in  full — • 
whereas  many  are  here  only  alluded  to,  or  quoted  in  part — I 
have  been  better  qualified  to  do  this  than  my  predecessors,  who 
have  here  and  there  had  a  fragment  or  a  sketch  to  guide  them, 
and  have  written  more  to  defend  or  advance  an  opinion  than 
to  review  the  history  impartially  and  give  the  absolute  facts. 
There  would  have  been  certain  advantages  in  writing  a  history 
of  the  navy  fifty  years  ago;  but  it  is  confidently  believed  by 
the  author  that  the  advantages  of  collecting  all  materials  at 
this  late  day,  and  sifting  them,  and  winnowing  the  good  from 
the  bad,  will  outweigh  the  disadvantages  that  time  brings  in 
the  destruction  of  historical  materials. 

As  regards  the  collecting  of  material  for  this  history,  the 
author  believes  it  will  be  worthy  of  a  short  space.  While  I 
have  been  peculiarly  fortunate  in  my  search,  and  have  un- 
earthed some  material  that  would  have  been  inaccessible  to 
anyone  else,  there  is  no  excuse  for  historians  having  neglected  to 
mention  the  navy  for  lack  of  material;  much  of  value  could 
have  at  all  times  been  found  at  Austin  by  a  little  research;  it 
is  true  that  a  great  deal  of  matter  relative  to  naval  history  was 
burned  at  Austin  in  1855,  and  in  other  fires,  but  still,  the 
various  departments  had  documents  supplemental  and  explan- 
atory of  the  navy.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Judge  C.  W. 
Raines,  in  his  "Bibliography  of  Texas,"  the  departments  have 
never  been  so  well  investigated  by  historians  as  the  rich  material 
there  would  justify.  As  the  material  accessible  to  the  historian 
stamps  the  value  of  the  work  in  a  large  measure,  I  desire  to 
give  a  brief  description  of  some  of  the  material  used  in  the 
work.  The  history  is  in  two  parts.  Texas  had  two  distinct 
navies;  and  part  one  recites  the  history  of  the  first  naval  estab- 
lishment from  1835  to  1839.  Part  two  describes  the  second 
naval  establishment  from  1839  to  1846. 

In  the  history  of  the  first  navy,  I  get  much  of  my  material 
from  the  New  Orleans  newspaper  files — of  which  I  have  the 
only  known  collection  from  1835  to  1837.  All  official  docu- 


ments  such  as  acts,  decrees,  etc.,  of  the  Texas  Government  were 
sent  to  William  Bryan,  Texas  agent,  in  New  Orleans,  and  also 
to  William  Christy,  a  true  friend  of  Texas;  their  collections, 
made  during  the  revolution  and  carefully  preserved  by  them, 
came  into  my  possession  some  ten  years  ago.  Many  of  these 
documents  have  no  duplicates,  and  are  now  for  the  first  time 
cited  in  a  history  of  Texas.  The  late  Judge  C.  W.  Raines,  in 
1898,  drew  my  attention  to  the  papers  of  William  A.  Tennison 
of  the  Texas  Navy.  I  purchased  these,  and  found  them  very 
reliable  and  valuable.  Judge  J.  G>  Tod,  while  Secretary  of 
State,  furnished  me  with  copies  of  all  documents  relative  to  the 
Texas  Navy,  in  the  Department  of  State:  in  the  work  itself  I 
have  taken  pleasure  in  giving  testimony  to  his  good  will.  One 
of  the  most  helpful  works,  and  an  indispensable  one  to  the 
worker  in  Texas  history,  not  residing  in  Austin,  is  the  Gam- 
mel  "Reprint  of  Texas  Laws.''  Through  the  kindness  of  Sec- 
retary Long,  of  the  U.  S.  N.  Department,  I  was  furnished  by 
the  Librarian  of  Naval  War  Records,  copies  of  valuable  docu- 
ments, and  have  had  forwarded  to  me  some  rare  books,  from 
which  I  made  accurate  copies  of  pamphlets  they  contained,  bear- 
ing upon  the  quarrel  between  Commodore  E.  W.  Moore  and 
President  Sam  Houston  upon  the  incorporation  of  Texas  Naval 
Officers  into  the  U.  S.  Navy.  Moore's  Appeal  is  probably  the 
most  valuable  single  work  relative  to  the  second  navy  of  Texas; 
but  one  copy  of  this  is  existing  at  this  late  day,  so  far  as  I  know, 
and  I  have  found  it  absolutely  reliable  as  regards  documents 
cited,  being,  as  it  is,  a  work  especially  to  vindicate  one  character 
and  attacking  another,  the  views  and  conclusions  reached  by 
the  author  must  be  carefully  examined  before  being  accepted. 
The  early  newspapers  of  Texas,  1835-45,  have  been  very  help- 
ful, and  many  valuable  facts  gathered  from  them.  The  earlier 
historians  of  Texas,  Edward,  Newell,  Foote,  and  Kennedy, 
wrote  their  histories  before  1841,  and  of  course  did  not  have 
the  opportunity  given  them  to  say  much  concerning  this  arm 
of  the  national  defense;  those  who  came  after  them  should  have 
given  the  navy  a  more  prominent  place.  Yoakum,  who  had 
very  excellent  opportunities,  gives  about  seven  pages  to  the  navy; 
his  statements  contain  several  errors.  Thrall,  including  bio- 
graphical sketches,  gives  about  four  pages,  containing  some  good 
matter,  but  also  a  number  of  errors.  Bancroft  gives  the  same 
space  as  Yoakum,  with  very  little  new  material.  Brown,  who 
had  splendid  opportunities  for  getting  accurate  information, 
makes  gross  errors  in  the  four  pages  he  devotes  to  the  Navy. 
Morphis  has  some  four  pages,  copied  from  the  other  histories; 
he  presents  no  new  matter.  Pennybacker's  school  history,  used 
in  all  public  schools,  is  of  course  intended  only  as  a  primary 
work,  and  not  much  original  research  work  is  expected  in  such 
a  work;  yet,  it  appears  to  me  that  more  space  might  be  devoted 


to  the  navy  which  did  so  much  for  Texas  than  appears  in  this 
volume;  less  than  one  page  is  devoted  to  the  first  navy,  and  not 
one  word  is  said  in  regard  to  Commodore  Moore  and  the  sec- 
ond Navy;  while  four  times  as  much  space  is  given  to  an  al- 
leged speech  of  Travis,  which  is  the  first  time  mentioned  in  the 
Texas  Almanac  nearly  forty  years  after  it  was  supposed  to  have 
been  delivered,  and  only  vouched  for  by  a  man  named  Rose, 
who  was  too  cowardly  to  remain  in  the  Alamo. 

In  writing  the  history  of  the  Texas  Navy  my  aim  has  been 
to  write  in  such  a  manner  as  to  entertain  the  critical  student, 
and  the  general  reader.  I  am  desirous  of  avoiding  a  parade  of 
honesty  in  acknowledging  the  sources  of  facts  given  in  this  his- 
tory, but  there  has  been  such  a  shameful  method  of  appropriat- 
ing other  men's  researches,  without  due  acknowledgment  by 
historians,  that  I  have  become  peculiarly  sensitive  to  withhold- 
ing credit  where  it  is  due.  To  the  critical  student  these  ac- 
knowledgments enhance  the  value  of  the  work;  to  the  general 
reader  I  can  only  express  the  hope  that  he  will  let  the  notes 
interrupt  as  little  as  possible  the  flow  of  thought,  and  that  they 
might  not  unduly  detract  or  mar  the  interest  which  the  facts 
related  are  calculated  to  awaken.  The  laws  of  unity  must  also 
be  violated  in  a  work  of  this  nature;  certain  facts  and  incidents 
pertaining  to  the  navy,  although  not  necessarily  belonging  to 
any  particular  chapter,  must  be  mentioned  somewhere;  to  weave 
them  gracefully  into  the  narrative  is  out  of  the  question,  at 
times,  so  the  best  that  was  possible  was  done.  In  gathering 
material  for  this  history,  I  have  always  gone  to  the  sources 
where  accessible;  and  given  credit  where  it  is  due.  In  crediting 
an  article,  I  have  given  the  preference  of  authority  to  the  earliest 
and  most  reliable  official  acts,  such  as:  Official  Proclamations, 
Acts,  Decrees,  Ordinances,  Convention  and  Council  and  Legis- 
lative doings;  after  these,  log  books,  official  letters,  newspapers 
and  pamphlets,  journals  of  officers,  histories  and  miscellaneous 
matter,  such  as  unofficial  letters  and  reminiscences.  In  the 
standard  histories,  such  as  Kennedy,  Yoakum,  Brown  and  Ban- 
croft, credit  or  reference  to  the  source  is  not  always  given  by 
them.  Bancroft  is  better  than  the  rest  in  this  respect;  but  in  no 
case  is  material  taken  from  these  sources,  if  the  credit  is  due 
elsewhere:  in  other  words,  if  a  reliable  newspaper  article  gives 
information  in  1836  that  is  exactly  the  same  as  embodied  in  one 
of  the  above  histories,  and  the  history  does  not  give  credit,  I 
give  credit  to  the  newspaper  that  first  furnished  the  article,  and 
so,  if  Yoakum  and  Bancroft  both  mention  the  same  fact,  I  give 
Yoakum  credit  and  not  Bancroft,  as  Yoakum  wrote  some  forty- 
five  years  before  Bancroft.  And  so,  too,  respecting  official  doc- 
uments: wherever  possible,  the  original  documents  are  cited, 
rather  than  excerpts  made  from  them,  and  incorporated  in  some 
history.  At  all  times  the  sources  have  been  most  diligently 


worked  for,  and  where  documents  are  rare,  attention  is  called 
to  their  existence  and  their  location  at  this  day.  The  author  is 
unwilling  to  send  forth  this  book  without  specially  mentioning 
a  few  friends,  who,  by  their  encouraging  words  and  efforts, 
have  cheered  him  on  when  his  zeal  was  flagging.  Mention  has 
already  been  made  of  the  kindness  of  the  late  Judge  Raines  and 
Judge  Tod.  In  the  body  of  the  work  I  allude  to  favors  shown 
be  by  the  late  Dr.  George  P.  Garrison  of  the  State  University. 
The  late  Lester  Bugbee  inspired  me  with  a  desire  to  do  some- 
thing towards  unfolding  and  developing  Texas  History;  and 
William  Winkler  has  put  me  under  obligations  for  kindnesses; 
and  I  desire  to  thank  Eugene  C.  Barker  of  the  State  University 
for  helpful  suggestions. 

ALEX.  DIENST. 
Temple,  Texas,  Jan.   1,   1909. 


of  Contents 


Page 

Chapter   I.              The  "Correo  Mexicano"  &  "San  Felipe"  1 

Chapter  II.             Organization  of  the  Navy  -      -  9 

Chapter   III.           The   Texan   Privateers 20 

Chapter  IV.           Naval  Vessels  Bought  and  Equipped     -  32 

Chapter  V.            The    "Liberty"  39 

Chapter  VI.           Texan  Man  of  War  "Invincible"  42 

Chapter  VII.         Texan  Man  of  War  "Brutus"  51 

Chapter  VIII.       Texan  Man  of  War  "Independence"     -  55 
Chapter  IX.           Measures  taken  to  procure  another  Navy  66 

Chapter  X.            Early  Troubles  of  the  New  Navy  -     -  77 

Chapter  XL           Cruise  of  the  Texan  Navy  1840-1841  -  82 

Chapter  XII.         Texas  and  Yucatan  Alliance     -     -  94 

Chapter  XIII.       The  Mutiny  on  Board  the  "San 

Antonio" 107 

Chapter  XIV.  Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at 
New  Orleans  and  His  Agreement 

With  Yucatan  -  111 

Chapter  XV.  Engagements  of  Texan  and  Mexican 
Navies  off  the  Yucatan  Coast  and 
Houston's  Proclamation  Against 

Moore 128 

Chapter  XVI.  Dismissal  of  Moore,  Lothrop,  and 
Snow  From  Service  and  Trial  of 

Moore 135 

Chapter  XVII.      Final  Disposition  of  the  Vessels  of  the 

Navy 140 


310 


"Mi/  Little  Pinnance,  .strike  thy  sailes, 
Let  slip  thy  anchor;  the  winde  failes, 
And  seamen  oft  in  calmes  do  feare 
That  foule  and  boistrous  weather's  neare; 
If  a  robustious  storme  should  rise, 
And  bluster  from  censorious  eyes, 
Al  though  the  swelling  waves  be  rough, 
And  proud,  thy  harbour's  safe  enough. 
Rest,  rest  awhile,  till  ebbing  tides 
Shall  make  thee  stanche  and  breme  thy  sides, 
When  windes  shall  serve,  hoist  up  thy  saile, 
And  fly  before  a  prosp'rous  gale; 
That  all  the  Coasters  may  resort, 
And  bid  thee  welcome  to  thy  port." 


Appreciation 


Dr.  Alex  Bienst  was  born  in  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  in  1870, 
and  moved  to  Texas  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.  After  study- 
ing medicine  and  dentistry  in  Philadelphia,  he  established 
himself  as  a  dentist  in  Temple,  Texas,  and  practiced  his 
profession  intermittently  until  his  death  in  1938.  He  be- 
came an  enthusiastic  student  of  Texas  history  and  a  col- 
lector of  books  and  source  materials  dealing  particularly 
with  the  Texas  revolution,  which  he  generously  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  historical  scholars.  As  his  collection  grew, 
he  found  that  it  tended  to  emphasize  the  history  of  the 
Texas  Navy,  about  which  historians  had  written  very  lit- 
tle, and  he  determined  to  put  in  its  proper  light  the  im- 
portant service  of  the  navy  in  the  establishment  of  the 
Republic  of  Texas.  His  study  appeared  in  four  numbers 
of  The  Quarterly  of  the  Texas  State  Historical  Associa- 
tion, beginning  with  the  issue  of  January,  1909.  This 
copy,  with  a  slight  rearrangement  of  the  original  make- 
up, is  one  that  he  re-printed  privately  for  distribution  to 
friends.  It  is  comprehensive  and  soundly  based  on  a  com- 
plete understanding  of  source  material,  and  will  always  be 
a  useful  and  authoritative  study  of  the  subject. 

For  twenty  years  Dr.  Dienst  was  a  valuable  member  of 
the  Executive  Council  and  for  three  years  was  President 
of  the  Texas  State  Historical  Association.  He  was  keenly 
interested  in  politics  and  people,  and  one  of  the  intermis- 
sions from  his  professional  office  was  employed  as  post- 
master of  Temple  by  appointment  of  President  Woodrow 
Wilson.  Time  saw  greater  and  great  absorption  in  his 
study  of  Texas  history.  Besides  his  history  of  the  Navy, 
he  published  in  The  Southivestern  Historical  Quarterly,  in 
1917,  a  significant  collection  of  "Contemporary  Poetry  of 
the  Texas  Revolution,"  compiled  mostly  from  Texas  and 
New  Orleans  newspapers.  During  his  later  years  he  gave 
much  time  to  the  promotion  of  his  beloved  specialty  in  free 
public  lectures  on  what  he  called  "the  grand  theme  of  the 
Pioneers  of  Texas."  To  sponsors  of  these  lectures  and 
patriotic  societies  he  made  three  stipulations:  (1)  that 
his  bare  traveling  expenses  be  reimbursed;  (2)  that  no 
admission  be  charged;  and  (3)  that  he  be  allowed  to  finish 


his  speech,  which  he  warned,  "means  two  hours  and  fif- 
teen minutes  speaking-  by  a  very  great  lover  of  Texas 
history." 

Dr.  Dienst  was  a  genial,  kindly  man,  critical  but  toler- 
ant, and  with  a  lively  sense  of  humor  which  he  could  apply 
to  himself.  Much  of  his  great  collection  of  Texana  is  now 
appropriately  a  part  of  the  library  of  The  University  of 
Texas. 

EUGENE  C.  BARKER, 

Professor  of  American  History, 
The  University  of  Texas. 


THE  NAVY  OF  THE  BEPUBLIC  OF  TEXAS. 

THE  FIRST  NAVY  OF  TEXAS. 

I.       THE  CORREO  MEXICANO  AND  THE  SAN  FELIPE. 

Throughout  the  first  half  of  1835  serious  misunderstandings 
and  difficulties  had  occurred  between  the  merchants  and  the  col- 
lector of  the  maritime  customhouse  of  Galveston,  Texas,  in  re- 
lation to  the  collection  of  duties.1  In  the  hope  of  averting  trouble 
and  of  bringing  about  a  peaceable  adjustment,  the  ayuntamiento 
of  Liberty,  in  the  deparment  of  Nacogdoches,  issued  a  manifesto2 
to  the  effect  "that  the  revenue  laws,  like  all  other  political  laws, 
are  to  be  respected  by  all  those  who  come  within  the  legitimate 
sphere  of  their  actions;  and  although  these  laws  may  be  unwise, 
to  resist  them  by  force  is  more  unwise  and  ill  timed  than  the  laws 
themselves."  The  manifesto  goes  on  to  say  that  the  duties  are 
oppressive,  disproportionate,  and  in  need  of  modification;  but  that 
this  change  must  be  a  legal  one,  and  not  brought  about  by  force. 
And  the  dissatisfied  citizens  are  urged  to  abstain  from  any  violent 
measures  towards  the  collector  of  the  maritime  customs  of  Gal- 
veston.  Notwithstanding  this  conservative  counsel,  Captain  Ten- 
orio  and  his  small  garrison  stationed  at  Anahuac  to  guard  the 
port  against  smuggling  and  afford  protection  to  the  collector  of 
customs,  were  attacked  by  William  B.  Travis  and  fifty  armed 
Texans  and  forced  to  leave.  This  act  of  the  Texans  and  Ameri- 
cans at  Anahuac  was  condemned  by  the  municipality  of  Liberty 

irThe  author  must  refer  the  general  reader  who  is  desirous  of  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  details  leading  up  to  the  revolution  in  Texas,  to  the 
histories  of  the  State,  and  to  such  monographic  accounts  as  relate  to  this 
period.  Only  such  matter  of  a  general  nature  will  be  inserted  as  is  neces- 
sary to  introduce  and  present  a  connected  account  of  the  movements  of  the 
naval  vessels  of  Texas  and  Mexico. 

2Texas  Republican,  May  30,  1835.  The  manifesto  is  dated  April  7, 
1835;  Edward  (History  of  Texas,  235-38)  erroneously  prints  it  under  the 
date  of  June  1.  See  Eugene  C.  Barker,  Difficulties  of  a  Mexican  Revenue 
Officer,  in  THE  QUARTERLY,  IV,  194,  note  3. 

"The  alcalde  in  his  separate  capacity  combined  the  larger  powers  of  our 
mayors  and  justices  of  the  peace.  The  duties  of  the  regidores  assimilated 


2  The  Correo  Mexicano  and  the  San  Felipe. 

and  the  Central  Committee.1  A  sensational  account  of  the  attack 
on  the  revenue  officer  was  carried  to  General  Cos,  who,  being  not 
yet  aware  that  it  did  not  carry  with  it  the  endorsement  of  the 
majority  of  the  Texans,  in  July  ordered  the  sloop  of  war  Correo 
Mexicano,  commanded  by  Captain  T.  M.  Thompson,  to  the  scene 
of  action  to  protect  Mexican  commerce.2  In  violation  of  orders,3 
Thompson  bullied  the  citizens  and  traders  at  Anahuac,  threatened 
to  burn  the  town,4  and  proved  himself  utterly  unfit  for  the  deli- 
cate task  of  upholding  Mexican  authority  and  calming  the  ex- 
citement of  the  people. 

Thompson's  most  serious  mistake  was  the  capture  of  the  Ameri- 
can brig  Tremont.  This  vessel  was  in  the  Texan  trade,5  and 
though  I  have  searched  diligently  I  can  find  nowhere  any  reason 
given  for  his  attack.6  No  historian  gives  even  a  hint  as  to  his 

to  those  of  our  alderman,  and  the  sindicos  corresponded  with  recorders. 
These  sitting  together  composed  the  Ayuntamiento,  which  had  jurisdiction 
over  the  entire  community." — Lynch,  The  Bench  and  Bar  of  Texas,  20. 

Edward,  History  of  Texas,  235;  Kennedy,  Texas,  II,  92-94;  Yoakum, 
History  of  Texas,  I,  339;  Bancroft,  North  Mexican  States  and  Texas,  II, 
F56.  (These  works  will  be  henceforth  cited  in  this  narrative  respectively 
as  Edward,  Kennedy,  Yoakum,  and  Bancroft.)  But  Edward  errs  in  citing 
here  as  proof  of  censure  for  an  act  which  occurred  June  30  a  proclamation 
which  he  dates  June  1,  and  which  was  actually  issued  April  17  and  pub- 
lished May  30.  See  above,  p.  1,  note  2. 

2Captain  Thompson  was  an  Englishman  by  birth,  and  Avas  at  this  time 
an  adopted  citizen  of  Mexico.  He  had  been  in  the  Mexican  service  some 
years.  His  appearance  was  unprepossessing,  and  he  was  reported  to  be 
striving  to  make  a  fortune  by  fair  means  or  foul.  He  was  misunderstood 
at  tins  time,  or  his  character  changed  materially;  for  later  on  he  was  very 
kind  to  Texas  prisoners,  and  ultimately  took  the  side  of  the  Texans.  Ed- 
ward, 248;  Yoakum,  I,  356;  Bancroft,  II,  161.  Edward  (248)  and  Ken- 
nedy (II,  94)  claim  that  his  instructions  were  to  make  observations,  and 
find  out  whether  the  collector  and  his  men  had  been  massacred  by  the 
Americans,  as  had  been  reported,  and  return  to  Matamoras  as  soon  as 
possible  with  his  information. 

3Colonel  Ugartechea  himself  admitted  this  much  in  a  letter  to  Stephen 
F.  Austin,  dated  October  4,  1835,  saying,  "I  know  you  are  right  to  com- 
plain of  Thompson's  proceedings,  which  I  still  less  approve,  as  they  were 
arbitrary;  he  having  no  authority  to  act  in  such  manner."  Yoakum,  I, 
356.  Captain  Thompson  issued  a  "Proclamation  to  the  citizens  of  Ana- 
huac," July  26,  1835.  It  is  printed  in  full  in  Brown,  Life  of  Henry  Smith, 
63,  et  seq. 

4Travis  to  Bowie,  July  30,  1835,  MS. 

5Pennybacker,  History  of  Texas,  117,  calls  the  Tremont  a  United  States 
naval  vessel.  This  is  a  mistake;  it  was  a  trading  vessel. 

"The  explanation  apparently  is  that  Thompson  had  arbitrarily  declared 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  .»      3 

reason.  The  nearest  explanation  I  can  find  in  his  favor  is  de- 
rived from  an  article  in  the  New  Orleans  newspapers,  signed 
"Seventy-six."  It  is  a  reply  to  a  defence  of  Thompson  which  I 
am  unfortunately  unable  to  locate,  but  from  the  communication 
of  "Seventy-six"  it  can  be  gathered  that  Thompson's  defender  as- 
serted that  he  was  sent  to  the  Texas  coast  to  interrupt  the  impor- 
tation of  negroes  from  Cuba.  I  will  give  the  comment  in  part, 
as  it  will  also  furnish  some  details  of  the  capture  which  I  can  find 
nowhere  else: 

Mr.  Editor:  My  attention  was  last  evening  called  to  an  article 
in  an  evening  journal,  headed  "Texas  and  the  United  States  Dis- 
trict Attorney  at  New  Orleans,  vs.  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Ala- 
bama and  Arkansas/7  which  contains  a  most  violent  and  abusive 
attack  against  the  individuals  in  this  country  whose  feelings  have 
been  aroused  in  favor  of  an  oppressed  and  deceived  people,  strug- 
ling  to  maintain  their  rights  of  civil  liberty:  an  attempt  to  as- 
sert the  innocence  of  Captain  Thompson  now  waiting  a  trial  for 
piracy.  They  are  also  charged  with  bringing  negroes  into  Texas, 
in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  1824,  while  in  fact  there  is  no 
provision  in  the  constitution  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  ne- 
groes from  Cuba  or  elsewhere.  The  writer  adds  that  Captain 
Thompson  was  sent  out  to  prevent  this  traffic,  and  we  venture  to 
assert  that  not  one  syllable  is  said  on  the  subject  in  his  instruc- 
tions, and  if  he  had  those  instructions,  we  would  ask  if  he  acted 
in  pursuance  of  them  when  he  took  the  American  brig  Tremont 
as  a  prize,  loaded  with  lumber,  and  how  much  of  the  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Mexico  he  fulfilled,  when  he  re- 
quired the  Captain  of  the  Tremont  to  come  on  board  the  Correo 
with  his  papers,  while  that  treaty  expressly  provided  that  a  Mex- 
ican armed  vessel  shall  board  an  American  Merchantman  by  send- 
ing one  of  her  officers  on  board,  with  not  more  than  three  men, 
and  shall  in  no  case  require  the  Captain  of  the  Merchantman  to 
leave  the  vessel  with  his  papers. 

That  negroes  were  imported  into  Texas  from  Cuba,  and  even  from 
Africa  direct,  at  this  time,  is  generally  conceded ;  Fannin,  the  Texas 
martyr,  was  himself  accused  of  importation  of  African  slaves  by 

a  blockade  of  the  Brazos,  and  that  he  attacked  the  Tremont  for  violating 
the  blockade.  See  sworn  statement  of  A.  J.  Yates,  I.  N.  Moreland,  and 
A.  C.  Allen  in  Texas  Republican,  September  19,  1835.— Editors  of 
QUARTERLY. 


4  The  Correo  Mexicano  and  the  San  Felipe. 

no  less  a  man  than  S.  Rhoads  Fisher,  later  Secretary  of  the  Texan 
Navy.1  This  version  of  the  matter  might  also  account  for  the 
great  anger  of  the  Americans  at  Anahuac,  who  may  have  been 
awaiting  the  arrival  of  a  slaver,  in  order  to  purchase  their  wares 
and  cross  over  the  Sabine  with  cheaper  negroes  than  could  be 
purchased  in  the  United  States.  In  favor  of  this  theory  is  the 
note  which  Bancroft2  inserts  without  comment  that  "Washington 
Stiles,  one  of  the  crew  of  the  Tremont,  in  the  trial  of  Thompson 
at  New  Orleans  for  piracy,  swore  that  Thompson  said  that  if  he 
could  capture  two  American  vessels,  the  Tremont  and  the  San 
Felipe,  his  fortune  would  be  made  and  he  would  stop."  Just 
how  his  fortune  would  be  made  by  capturing  a  vessel  loaded  with 
lumber,  as  the  Tremont  was,  is  not  clear,  but  if  it  was  loaded 
with  two  or  three  hundred  negroes  selling  at  one  dollar  a  pound, 
his  statement  looks  reasonable,  as  there  was  an  active  demand  for 
negroes  at  this  price.  The  Tremont  was  captured  September  1, 
but  Thompson's  previous  acts  had  so  exasperated  the  Texans  that 
they  had  already  determined  to  seize  the  Correo  and  accomplish 
his  downfall. 

It  was  in  pursuance  of  this  design  that  the  Texan  trading 
schooner  San  FeWpe  arrived  off  the  mouth  of  the  Brazos,  Septem- 
ber 1,  just  as  a  prize  crew  from  the  Correo  was  weighing  anchor 
on  the  Tremont.  The  San  Felipe  was  purchased  in  New  Orleans 
for  Texas  by  Thomas  F.  McKinney,  a  prosperous  merchant  of 
Quintana,  and  associated  at  that  time  in  business  with  Samuel  M. 
Williams.  The  price  paid  for  the  vessel  was  $8,965  "including 
freight  on  board  when  taken/73  which  would  lead  one  to  believe 
that  the  purchasers  were  in  a  great  hurry  indeed,  not  to  have  time 
to  unload  the  freight, — unless  said  freight  consisted  of  holloware 
(cannon)  as  Edward  states,  and  was  such  goods  as  they  wanted. 
Captain  William  A.  Hurd  was  put  in  command.4  Captain  Thomp- 

^roadside  (December  17,  1835),  "To  the  People  of  Texas,"  in  Dienst, 
Collection  of  Documents  (cited  henceforth  as  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.),  II,  23; 
see  below  p.  24;  Eugene  C.  Barker,  in  QUARTEELY,  VI,  152. 

'Bancroft,   II,   161,  note  23.     Bancroft  is  here  quoting  from  Winthrop, 
Report  of  the  Trial  of  Thomas  M.  Thompson,  3,  16,  which  I  have  not  seen. 
3Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II,  16. 
4Edward,  249. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  5 

son  of  the  Correo  was  aware  of  the  intentions  of  the  San  Felipe 
and  was  keeping  a  sharp  lookout  for  her,  and  seemed  in  no  way 
disposed  to  evade  her  attack.1  At  8  o'clock  in  the  evening  the 
Correo  came  up,  and  without  warning  fired  into  the  San  Felipe.2 
Bancroft  says  the  fight  lasted  only  three  quarters  of  an  hour.  The 
Texas  Republican,3  which  gives  the  best  of  the  meager  accounts, 
says: 

On  the  arrival  of  the  Schr.  San  Felipe,  Capt.  Kurd,  at  the  bar 
of  the  Brazos,  she  was  attacked  by  the  piratical  schooner  Correo, 
Capt.  Thompson,  and  after  an  engagement  of  two  hours  the  Cor- 
reo made  oif,  but  was  pursued,  overtaken  and  captured  by  the  San 
Felipe  and  brought  back.  The  officers  and  crew  consisted  of  Cap- 
tain T.,  1st  and  2d  Lieutenants  and  14  seamen.  During  the  en- 
gagement one  of  the  crew  of  the  Correo,  a  native  of  Baltimore 
named  Blackburn,  received  a  mortal  wound,  of  which  he  died  two 
days  after.  Capt.  Hurd  took  command  of  the  Correo  and  de- 
parted for  New  Orleans,  with  the  pirates  in  chains,  leaving  Capt. 
Grayson  in  command  of  the  San  Felipe  to  follow.4 

The  San  Felipe  had  a  very  short  career  after  this  engagement. 
I  can  find  no  further  mention  of  her  in  any  history;  but  Edward 
Hall  says  in  a  letter  to  Stephen  F.  Austin  that  the  San  Felipe 
went  in  pursuit  of  a  Mexican  armed  vessel  and  was  lost  in  Mata- 
gorda  Bay,  that  the  heavy  cannon  had  been  saved  and  was  on  Bird 
Island,  and  that  he  had  heard  from  Matagorda  that  the  schooner 
William  Bobbins  sailed  from  there  on  the  13th  with  the  intention 
of  picking  up  the  gun  and  taking  it  to  the  Brazos.5  It  seems, 
however,  that  the  San  Felipe  was  only  aground,  and  not  wrecked. 
In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  General  Council  by  Thomas  F.  Mc- 
Kinney,  dated  November  11,  he  stated  that  they  succeeded  in  get- 
ting the  schooner  off,  and  that,  in  company  with  the  William  Rob- 

xLetter  from  J.  W.  Fannin,  Jr.,  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II,  23. 

2Yoakum,  II,  162.  Edward,  249,  claims  that  the  San  Felipe  was  hailed, 
and  that  she  replied  with  shot,  and  thus  fired  first.  This  is  merely  an 
assertion. 

"Issue  of  September   10.    1835,   in  Austin  Papers;   cf.   Bancroft,  II,   162. 

4In  the  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  October  15,  1837,  Captain  Thomp- 
son states  that  the  steamboat  Laura  assisted  in  this  capture.  Bancroft 
(II,  162)  says:  "An  engagement  followed,  which  lasted  for  three-quarters 
of  an  hour,  when  Thompson  drew  off.  In  the  morning  the  San  Felipe, 
taken  in  tow  by  a  small  steamboat,  the  Laura,  went  in  pursuit  of  the 
Correo,  which  was  almost  becalmed  about  six  miles  off.  The  Mexican  cap- 
tain surrendered  without  further  figating." 

5Hall  to  Austin,  November  23,  1835.     Austin  Papers. 


6  The  Correo  Mexicano  and  the  San  Felipe. 

bins  she  would  go  at  once  to  New  Orleans.  He  said  that  on  last 
Thursday,  while  the  San  Felipe  lay  on  the  beach,  she  exchanged  sev- 
eral shots  with  a  Mexican  vessel,  and  he  thought  that  some  shot 
hit  the  Mexican,  which  put  to  sea.1  Nothing  further  can  be  found 
relative  to  her,  except  a  resolution  of  the  General  Council  of  Jan- 
uary 17,  1836,  by  which  E.  E.  Eoyall  was  appointed  agent  to  take 
charge  of  and  secure  the  wreck  of  the  schooner  and  whatever  be- 
longed to  her,  then  lying  on  the  beach  in  or  near  Paso  Cavallo 
and  report  to  the  Government.2 

Meanwhile,  Captain  Thompson  and  his  Lieutenant  O'Campo 
were  carried  to  New  Orleans  and  in  January,  1836,  they  were  tried 
on  a  charge  of  piracy  in  the  Federal  District  Court,  the  suit  being 
termed,  "The  United  States  vs.  Thompson.'73  New  Orleans  sym- 
pathy was  largely  with  Texas,  and  the  excitement  seems  to  have 
reached  the  attorneys  on  both  sides.  P.  Soule,  one  of  Thompson's 
attorneys,  and  H.  Carleton,  United  States  District  Attorney,  passed 
the  lie  between  them,  and  threw  at  each  other  inkstands,  books, 
etc.,  for  which  Judge  Harper  of  the  United  States  District  Court 
sentenced  them  each  to  six  hours  imprisonment.  The  jury  sat  on 
the  case  one  whole  night,  and  brought  in  a  verdict  to  acquit 
O'Campo.  It  was  not  able  to  agree  in  Thompson's  case,  and  the 
court  ordered  a  new  trial.  Mr.  Carleton  thereupon,  with  leave  of 
the  court,  entered  a  nolle  prosequi,  and  the  prisoners  were  dis- 
charged.4 

The  New  Orleans  Courier5  said  concerning  the  trial.  "The  issue 
of  the  suit  ...  is  indeed  a  very  remarkable  one — such,  it 
may  be  said,  as  never  happened  before — the  pirates  set  at  liberty 
and  the  Attorneys  committed  to  jail."  The  Commercial  Bulletin6 
gave  the  following  account  of  it: 

^•Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  10. 

"IUd.,  346. 

3The  Courier,  January  14  and  16,  1836;  New  Orleans  News  of  various 
dates — all  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doe.,  I,  5. 

*Yoakum  (I,  356)  says  Thompson  was  acquitted.  This  is  not  so;  an  ac- 
quittal would  imply  that  the  San  Felipe  had  erred  in  capturing  him,  which 
a  withdrawal  of  the  charge  does  not  necessarily  imply.  Thompson  had  a 
bad  case  to  defend,  as  he  could  not  produce  his  commission  at  the  trial ; 
but  it  is  to  Mexico's  credit  that  she  nevertheless  sustained  him. 

BIn  its  issue  for  January  16,  1836. 

°For  January  18,  1836. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas. 


On  Saturday  last,  the  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court 
of  this  city,  having  ordered  the  commitment  of  the  District  At- 
torney and  of  Mr.  Soule,  in  consequence  of  an  altercation  which 
took  place  between  those  gentlemen  during  the  trial  of  Thomson, 
a  large  number  of  the  friends  of  the  District  Attorney  visited  him 
during  his  short  confinement. 

While  they  were  assembled  in  the  room  where  the  District  At- 
torney was  confined,  Dr.  Archer,  one  of  the  Commissioners  from 
Texas,  addressed  Eandell  Hunt,  Esq.,  the  assistant  Counsel  of  the 
District  Attorney  in  the  trial  of  Thomson,  in  a  very  eloquent 
manner,  expressing  his  own  satisfaction  and  that  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  of  Texas,  for  the  able  and  powerful  address  of  Mr.  Hunt 
delivered  to  the  Jury  in  that  cause,  and  for  his  bold  and  righteous 
vindication  of  the  cause  of  Texas  in  her  present  struggle  for  Civil 
Liberty,  and  concluded  by  saying  that  his  fellow-citizens  could  give 
no  adequate  compensation  to  his  efforts,  and  his  expression  of 
those  sentiments,  but  they  desired  his  acceptance  of  some  testi- 
monials of  their  approbation  and  esteem.  He  then  presented  Mr. 
Hunt  in  the  name  of  the  Citizens  of  Texas,  with  a  very  splendid 
Gold  Lever,  the  most  valuable  that  could  be  found  in  this  city, 
engraved  inside  the  case,  with  the  following  inscription:  "Pre- 
sented by  the  Citizens  of  Texas  to  Eandell  Hunt,  Esq.,  in  testi- 
mony of  their  esteem  of  his  exalted  talents,  and  eloquent  vindi- 
ication  of  the  cause  of  Truth,  Justice  and  Civil  Liberty."  This, 
with  a  very  superb  cane  and  some  other  valuable  jewels,  were  re- 
ceived by  Mr.  Hunt,  and  on  receiving  them  with  a  letter,  which 
we  have  inserted  below,  he  made  a  very  appropriate  and  eloquent 
reply. 

New  Orleans,  Jan.  16,  1836. 
Eandell  Hunt,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir — The  undersigned  respectfully  request  your  accept- 
ance of  the  enclosed,  as  a  slight  testimonial  of  their  personal  es- 
teem, and  an  expression  of  their  admiration  of  the  able  and  elo- 
quent address  delivered  to  the  Jury  by  yourself  last  evening — of 
your  powerful  effort  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  Justice,  and  last, 
not  least,  the  warm  and  heartfelt  expression  of  your  sympathies 
for  their  oppressed  and  struggling  country  and  your  righteous 
vindication  of  their  conduct  in  the  present  crisis.  That  the  most 


8  The  Correo  Mexicano  and  the  San  Felipe. 

brilliant  success  may  attend  your  career,  and  the  talents  and  learn- 
ing which  you  possess  ever  be  engaged  in  as  just  and  holy  a  cause 
as  the  one  you  have  so  eloquently  sustained,  whether  it  be  to  shield 
the  innocent,  or  punish  the  guilty — and  that  you  may  reap  a  rich 
reward  in  your  own  heart,  and  the  approbation  of  your  fellow 
citizens,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of 

Your  obedient  servants, 

Adolphus  Storm  [Sterne],  B.  T.  Archer, 

W.  H.  Bynum,  S.  F.  Austin, 

John  A.  Wharton,  W.  H.  Wharton, 

A.  Hotchkiss,  W.  G.  Logan, 

Wm.  Bryan,  J.  Scott, 

A.  C.  Allen,  A.  J.  Yates. 

New  Orleans,  Jan.  17,  1836. 

Gentlemen — I  acknowledge  with  the  deepest  sensibility,  and  the 
most  unfeigned  thanks,  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  and  of  the  tes- 
timonials which  accompany  it. 

When  I  consented  to  act  with  the  District  Attorney  in  the  pros- 
ecution of  Thompson,  I  did  so  with  a  single  regard  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  truth,  and  justice,  and  liberty,  and  in  the  expectation  of 
receiving  no  other  reward  than  the  consciousness  of  an  honorable 
effort  to  serve  my  country  on  that  occasion,  to  the  best  of  my 
abilities.  Judge  then  of  my  surprise,  pleasure  and  pride  I  have 
experienced  at  the  thanks,  commendation  and  kindness  heaped 
upon  me  by  you  all  of  whom  are  gentlemen  of  the  highest  respect- 
ability for  private  worth,  and  many  of  whom  are  destined  to  fill 
some  of  the  brightest  pages  of  the  history  of  these  times ;  it  is  an 
honor  of  which  the  most  distinguished  man  of  this  age  might  well 
feel  proud. 

If  the  defence  of  the  principles  of  liberty  be,  as  I  feel  assured, 
one  of  the  highest  duties  of  the  profession  to  which  I  belong,  I 
shall  never  cease  to  rejoice  that  that  defence,  in  connection  with 
the  cause  of  Texas,  became  a  part  of  my  duty  on  the  occasion  to 
which  you  have  adverted.  A  native  American,  I  cannot  but  feel 
the  deepest  interest  in  the  success  of  a  people,  connected  with  us 
by  the  ties  of  a  common  origin,  and  a  common  regard  for  equal 
rights,  and  bravely  struggling  for  constitutional  liberty.  God 
speed  the  noble  work ! 

Accept,  gentlemen,  once  more  my  acknowledgements  for  the 
testimonials  of  esteem  with  which  you  have  honored  me,  and  re- 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  9 

ceive  in  return  my  best  wishes  for  your  individual  happiness,  and 
the  welfare  of  your  country. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

RANDALL  HUNT. 
To  Messrs.  B.  T.  Archer,  etc. 

Thus  happily  and  amidst  rejoicing,  was  closed  the  incident  of 
the  Correo  and  the  San  Felipe.^ 

II.      ORGANIZATION    OP   THE   NAVY. 

At  a  mass  meeting  held  at  Columbia,  August  15,  1835,  a  com- 
mittee of  fifteen  persons  was  appointed  to  prepare  an  address  to 
the  municipalities  of  Texas,  asking  them  for  co-operation  in  a  call 
for  a  consultation  of  all  Texas.  The  address  requested  that  each 
municipality  should  elect  five  delegates  to  meet  at  Washington,  on 
the  15th  of  October.  On  this  date  only  thirty-two  members  were 
present;  these  not  being  sufficient  for  a  quorum,  the  meeting  was 
adjourned  to  November  1.  By  the  3rd  of  November  fifty-five 
members  had  assembled  at  San  Felipe  instead  of  Washington. 
This  consultation  was  authorized  to  organize  a  government,  and 
to  provide  ways  and  means  for  carrying  on  the  war.  A  provisional 
government  was  formed,  in  which  Henry  Smith  was  appointed 
governor  and  James  W.  Robinson  lieutenant  governor.2 

One  of  the  very  first  matters  receiving  the  attention  of  the 
Consultation  was  the  proper  protection  of  the  sea  coast.  As  it  was 
impossible  to  create  a  navy  in  a  day,  it  was  determined  to  issue 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal;  and  it  was  hoped  that  by  having 
numerous  privateers  cruising  upon  the  Texas  coast,  not  only  would 
Texas  be  protected,  but  the  Mexicans  would  be  seriously  harassed. 
It  will  be  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this  narrative  merely  to 
outline  the  plans  proposed  and  those  finally  adopted.  On  the  31st 

1  About  two  years  afterward,  August  17,  1837,  Capt.  J.  D.  Boylan,  com- 
manding the  Texan  man  of  war  Brutus,  captured  the  Correo  again.  She 
was  then  passing  by  the  name  of  Rafaelita.  (See  Texas  Navy  Papers, 
State  Library.) 

2Bancroft,  II,  162,  169,  171;  Journals  of  the  Consultation,  50. 


10  Organization  of  the  Navy. 

of  October,  1835,  the  General  Council,  which  was  looking  after 
the  interests  of  Texas  until  the  opening  of  the  Consultation,  issued 
letters  of  marque  to  several  "gentlemen  of  the  lower  country/'1    I 
am  of  the  opinion  that  these  commissions  were  not  used,  or  were 
surrendered  later,  and  those  authorized  by  the  Consultation  ac- 
cepted in  exchange.     The   first  application   for  "letters"   to   the 
Consultation  was  made  on  November  8th,  1835,  by  A.  C.  Allen,2 
]\ir.  Allen  proposed  to  "arm,  mian  and  fit  out  a  vessel  mounting 
nine  guns,  and  fifty  stand  of  small  arms,  with  fifty  volunteers  on 
board  and  four  months  provisions,  to  cruise  off  our  coast  as  a 
privateer."     The  committee  to  whom  this  proposal  was  referred 
reported:    "That  they  view  the  protection  and  defence  of  our  sea- 
board of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  present  crisis;"  and  rec- 
ommended that  Allen's  proposal  be  accepted;    that  all  authority 
vested  in  the  Consultation  be  granted  to  him  to  cruise  with  such 
vessel  as  he  might  think  proper  to  arm  and  man  as  a  privateer; 
that  a  suitable  commission  be  issued  to  him  for  that  purpose  by 
the  executive;   and  that  "the  thanks  of  the  convention  be  tendered 
to  Mr.  Allen,  for  his  patriotism  and  devotion  in  our  struggle  for 
constitutional  liberty."     Further  on  it  will  appear  that  Mr.  Allen 
made  good  use  of  the  commission.     Some  one  about  this  time  must 
have  raised  the  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  Consultation  to 
issue  letters  of  marque ;  for  on  November  13th  we  find  the  follow- 
ing report  on  the  subject  from  a  select  committee,  of  which  D.  C. 
Barrett  was  chairman  :3    "This  convention,  in  adopting  the  declar- 
ation of  the  seventh  of  November,  have  organized  this  power,  and 
by  the  provisions  of  the  resolution  constituting  a  provisional  gov- 
ernment, have  vested  this  authority  in  the  governor  and  general 
council;  consequently  these4  requires  no  further  action  upon  the 
subject  by  this  house  during  its  present  session."     Article  four  of 
the  plan  of  the  Provisional  Government  as  finally  adopted,  author- 
ized the  governor  "by  himself,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the 

xReport  of  General  Council  to  Consultation  in  Journals  of  the  Consulta- 
tion, 11.     For  form  of  commission  see  THE  QUARTERLY,  VII,  278. 
Journals  of  the  Consultation,  25-26. 
3Ibid.,  40. 
'There. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  H 

council/'  to  employ  the  army  and  navy  in  "all  proper  ways"  for 
the  defense  of  the  country.1 

The  Council  which  was  to  assist  the  governor  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  navy  was  elected  by  the  Consultation  from  its  own 
membership,,  one  from  each  municipality.2  The  Consultation  ad- 
journed on  November  14,  and  the  Governor  and  Council  were  now 
in  power.  On  November.  15,  D.  C.  Barrett  and  A.  Houston  re- 
ported to  the  Council  among  other  things  that,  "The  Mexican 
Schooner  Montezuma,  with  another  vessel,  is  cruising  in  the  Gulf. 
The  Vera  €ruzana  is  off  Matagorda — more  commissions  for  ves- 
sels in  the  Texas  service  are  requested."3  This  information  was 
derived  from  a  letter  from  McKinney  and  Williams  to  the  Con- 
sultation, dated  the  9th.  It  has  been  affirmed  that  the  letter  was 
written  to  hurry  the  Council  into  issuing  letters  of  marque,  and 
that  no  Mexican  vessels  were  then  endangering  the  Texan  coast. 
If  this  was  the  object,  it  served  the  purpose.  The  Vera  Cruzana 
was  the  vessel  that  was  said  to  have  exchanged  shots  with  the  San 
Felipe  as  she  lay  on  the  beach  in  Matagorda  Bay,  as  was  men- 
tioned in  the  last  chapter. 

On  the  next  day,  November  16,  Governor  Smith  sent  a  message 
to  the  Council,  one  paragraph  of  which  is  as  follows : 

I  recommend  the  granting  of  Letters  of  Marque  and  Keprisal; 
by  doing  which  we  cannot  only  prevent  invasion  by  sea,  but  we 
can  blockade  all  the  ports  of  Mexico,  and  destroy  her  commerce, 
and  annoy  and  harrass  the  enemy  more  in  a  few  months,  than  by 
many  years'  war,  carried  on  within  our  own  limits.  My  own  mind 
is  satisfied  that  the  whole  of  our  maritime  operations  can  be  car- 
ried on  by  foreign  capital  and  foreign  enterprise.  Already  ap- 
plications for  commissions  have  been  made;  they  are  willing  to 
take  the  hazard,  as  such  afford  them  every  encouragement.4 

The  governor  here  seems  optimistic,  but  much  that  he  antici- 
pated from  privateers  came  to  pass.  Not  all  who  applied  for  com- 
missions actually  fitted  out  privateers ;  perhaps  they  did  not  like 

Journals  of  the  Consultation,  44. 
^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  3. 
3Ibid.,  8. 
13. 


12  Organization  of  the  Navy. 

the  restrictions  which  the  commissions  imposed.  At  this  time  the 
governor  did  not  seem  to  think  it  necessary  to  form  a  national 
fleet;  later,  as  privateers  did  not  materialize  according  to  his 
hopes,  he  viewed  favorably  the  creation  of  a  navy  to  be  owned  and 
controlled  by  Texas. 

This  message  of  the  governor  was  referred  to  the  committee  OD. 
naval  affairs,  composed  of  Messrs.  Perry,  Harris,  and  West.  On 
November  18  the  committee  reported  themselves  in  favor  of  grant- 
ing letters  of  marque  under  the  following  restrictions:  (1)  Ap- 
plicants should  be  men  of  character  and  skill  as  naval  tactictians, 
and  no  license  should  be  granted  to  vessels  under  eighty  tons  bur- 
den, or  carrying  less  than  four  twelve  pound  carronades,  "or  their 
equivalent  in  metal."  (2)  Cruising  should  be  restricted  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  prizes  made  only  of  vessels  sailing  under  the 
flag  and  commission  of  the  central  government  of  Mexico.  (3) 
All  prizes  should  be  brought  into  ports  of  Texas  and  adjudicated 
by  competent  tribunals;  and  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  prize 
money  should  be  paid  into  the  public  treasury,  and  the  balance  to 
the  captors.  (4)  All  persons  cruising  under  license  must  give 
good  security  for  the  correct  performance  of  the  conditions  men- 
tioned in  their  commissions.  (5)  Commissions  were  not  to  be 
issued  for  more  than  six  nor  for  less  than  three  months,  and  were 
in  any  case  to  cease  at  the  conclusion  of  war  between  Texas  and 
Mexico.  The  report  concludes  as  follows : 

Your  committee  would  further  most  earnestly  represent  that  the 
establishment  of  a  small  Naval  force  for  the  security  of  our  ex- 
tended coast  and  the  protection  of  our  own  commerce  would  seem 
to  them  highly  necessary  and  indispensable,  and  under  that  con- 
viction would  recommend  the  purchase,  arming,  and  equipping 
two  schooners  of  twelve,  and  two  schooners  of  six  guns  each,  to 
cruise  in,  and  about  the  bays  and  harbors  of  our  coast.  This  arm 
of  the  service  should  be  confided  and  entrusted  only  to  men  whose 
nautical  skill  and  experience  are  well  known  and  established,  and 
whose  activity  and  efficiency  would  with  greater  certainty  secure 
the  objects  of  its  creation  and  organization.1 

Here  we  have  the  first  official  recommendation  for  a  navy  to  be 
entirely  controlled  by  the  government,  and  to  consist  of  government 
vessels. 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  25-27. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  13 

On  the  next  day,  November  19th,  the  Council  took  up  the  re- 
port of  this  committee.  The  first  section  was  adopted;  the  sec- 
ond was  amended  to  allow  privateers  to  cruise  on  the  high  seas  as 
well  as  in  the  Gulf;  the  third  was  amended  to  give  the  govern- 
ment only  five,  instead  of  twenty-five,  per  cent  of  the  money  de- 
rived from  prizes;  the  fourth  was  stricken  out;  the  fifth  was 
agreed  to  without  change;  and  then  the  entire  report  as  amended 
was  adopted.1 

On  the  19th,  the  committee  on  Naval  affairs  introduced  an 
ordinance  "for  granting  letters  of  Marque  and  Eeprisal,  and  for 
the  establishment  of  a  Navy,"  which  with  a  slight  amendment  was 
passed  to  its  second  reading.2  The  next  day  Governor  Smith,  who 
was  not  yet  informed  of  this  action,  sent  in  a  message  in  which 
he  said,  "Commissions  granting  letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal, 
have  been  earnestly  solicited,  both  by  our  own  citizens  and  for- 
eigners, and  as  yet  have  not  been  acted  on."  This  subject,  with 
others  mentioned  in  the  message,  the  governor  deemed  "of  the 
most  urgent  and  vital  importance,"  and  he  thought  that  it  should 
receive  prompt  attention.3  Three  days  later,  November  22,  the 
Council  met  on  special  call  of  the  president,  and  the  ordinance  for 
granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  and  for  establishing  a 
navy  was  taken  up  and  read  a  second  time.  It  was  amended  by 
inserting  between  the  words  "Texas"  and  "that"  the  following, 
"that  the  Governor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Council,  shall  have  power  to  grant  letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal," 
which  was  agreed  to.  On  motion  the  rule  in  this  case  was  sus- 
pended and  the  ordinance  was  read  the  third  time  and  passed 
finally.4  It  was  sent  to  the  governor  for  his  approval,  and  on  the 
24th  he  returned  it  with  the  following  remarks : 

To  this  bill  I  am  bound  to  object  as  it  now  stands.  The  priv- 
ileges granted  to  privateers  seems  to  me  rather  unbounded — that 
this  Government  takes  all  the  responsibilities  without  any  interest 
in  the  captures  which  may  be  made. 

If  prizes  are  brought  into  our  ports,  the  Government  will  be  at 
the  expense  of  adjudication  and  sale,  without  remuneration,  pro- 

1 Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  31. 
*lbid.,  32. 
3Ibid.,  37-38. 
*LUd.,  44-45. 


14  Organization  of  the  Navy. 

vided  they  should  be  found  lawful  prizes;  if  not  lawful  prizes 
they  will  be  bound  to  make  remuneration  for  the  act  of  their  com- 
missioned agents,  who  have  brought  into  our  ports  prizes  which 
cannot  be  condemned  and  sold  as  such.  Besides,  I  consider,  agree- 
ably to  the  provisions  of  the  ordinance,  that  privateers  would  have 
an  unbridled  license  to  roam  at  large,  without  being  particularly 
under  the  control  of  the  Government,  and  kept  within  limits  cal- 
culated to  protect  our  own  commerce,  and  might,  in  the  end,  be 
productive  of  more  injury  than  good.  ...  If  they  are  not 
commissioned  in  a  manner  calculated  to  promote  the  public  good 
by  annoying  our  enemies  and  protecting  our  own  commerce,  they 
might  prove  injurious  to  the  Government  rather  than  an  advan- 
tage. . 

As  it  respects  that  part  of  the  bill  making  provisions  for  the 
creation  of  a  Navy.  If.  it  should  be  made  out  in  a  separate  bill 
for  that  purpose,  it  would  appear  much  better,  and  would  entire- 
ly meet  my  views,  as  I  deem  it  entirely  necessary  for  the  protec- 
tion of  our  commerce.  ...  I  would  therefore  suggest  the 
piopriety  of  separating  the  substantive  matter  of  the  bill,  and 
introduce  one  solely  for  the  purposes  of  creating  a  Navy  on  proper 
principles,  and  leaving  out  the  provision  for  granting  letters  of 
marque  and  reprisal,  unless  your  honorable  body  may  think 
proper  to  introduce  it  in  a  different  shape.  I  am  well  aware  that 
no  good  could  result  from  granting  commissions  as  contemplated 
by  that  portion  of  the  bill  and  as  such  object  to  it.1 

On  the  same  day  the  ordinance  was  reconsidered.  When  the 
question  was  put,  "shall  this  ordinance  now  pass?  the  veto  of  the 
Governor  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,"  the  vote  stood  three 
for  passing  and  eight  for  rejection,  so  the  ordinance  was  lost.  It 
was  recommitted,  on  motion,  to  the  standing  committee  on  naval 
affairs,  and  Mr.  Westover  was  added  to  the  committee.2 

The  next  day,  November  25,  the  committee  presented  an  or- 
dinance for  granting  letters  of  marque,  which  was  read  the  first 
time;  and,  on  motion,  the  rules  were  suspended,  and  it  was  read  a 
second  time.  Mr.  Hanks  moved  that  the  words  "twenty  per  cent"  be 
stricken  out,  and  the  words  "ten  per  cent5'  be  inserted,  which  was 
agreed  to.  The  rule  was  further  suspended,  and  the  ordinance 
read  a  third  time  and  passed.  At  the  same  time  an  ordinance  for 
2stablishing  a  navy  was  introduced  and  by  suspension  of  the  rules 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  51-52. 
53. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  15 

hastened  through  its  third  reading  and  passed.1  On  the  26th, 
these  two  ordinances  were  reported  enrolled.2.  The  governor  af- 
fixed his  signature  to  the  ordinance  granting  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal  on  the  27th  of  November,  1835.3 

The  ordinance  granting  letters  of  marque  agreed  in  substance 
with  the  report  of  the  committee  on  naval  affairs  as  amended  by 
the  Council,4  except  that  the  government's  share  of  prize  money 
was  increased  in  accordance  with  the  governor's  suggestion. 
Hanks's  amendment  to  change  that  share  from  twenty  per  cent  to 
ten  per  cent  must  have  been  overlooked  when  the  ordinance  was 
enrolled;  for  I  have  one  of  the  original  commissions,5  and  also 
one  of  the  original  copies  of  the  supplementary  letter  issued  a 
few  days  later,  and  the  commission  places  the  government's  share 
of  prize  money  at  "twenty  per  cent."  A  few  days  afterwards,  the 
ordinance  was  modified  by  further  action  of  the  governor  and 
Council.  Major  Samuel  Whiting  called  on  the  governor  and 
stated  that  he  was  on  his  way  to  New  Orleans,  and  wished  there 
to  fit  out  some  privateers;  and,  as  he  did  not  know  whom  he 
would  get  to  command  them,  or  just  what  vessels  he  would  secure, 
he  wanted  some  blank  commissions.  So,  on  the  29th  of  Novem- 
ber, Governor  Smith  in  a  message  to  the  Council  recommended 
the  passage  of  an  ordinance  authorizing  the  executive  to  vest 
Whiting  with  authority  to  fill  out  the  blanks,  under  special  in- 
structions from  the  executive  in  conformity  therewith.  A  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  draft  such  an  ordinance  and  reported  "an 
ordinance  and  decree  supplemental  to  an  ordinance  and  decree  for 
granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  passed  25th  November, 
1835,"  which  was  laid  on  the  table.  On  taking  the  matter  up 
later  the  Council  so  amended  the  ordinance  as  to  grant  three  blank 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  55. 

*2bid.,  56. 

^Ordinances  and  Decrees  of  the  Consultation,  etc.,  23-24;  a  copy  with 
autographs  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II,  1. 

"See  pp.  12-13,  above. 

5This  commission  is  printed  on  heavy  paper  by  Baker  and  Borden,  the 
date  of  the  imprint  being  San  Felipe,  November  27,  1835.  It  bears  the 
autographs  of  James  W.  Robinson,  lieutenant-governor  and  ex-officio  presi- 
dent of  the  Council;  E.  M.  Pease,  secretary  of  the  Council;  Henry  Smith, 
governor;  and  C.  B.  Stewart,  executive  secretary. 


16  Organization  of  the  Navy. 

commissions  to  Thomas  F.  McKinney  and  Silas  Dinsmore  to  be 
filled  for  the  same  purpose;  and,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hanks,  it  was 
further  amended  so  as  to  provide  that  ten  per  cent  of  the  prize 
money  should  be  paid  to  the  provisional  government,  anything  to 
the  contrary  in  the  previous  ordinance  notwithstanding.  The  ordi- 
nance was  then  passed  finally.1  Whiting  was  allowed  six  blank 
commissions;  McKinney  and  Dinsmore  three. 

Section  2  of  this  supplemental  ordinance  is  interesting  as  mak- 
ing the  first  reference  to  a  flag  for  the  service : 

Be  it  further  ordained  and  decreed,  etc.,  That  all  vessels  sailing 
under  Licenses,  as  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal,  which  have 
been,  or  may  hereafter  be  granted,  by  the  Governor  and  Council, 
or  by  the  Governor,  as  provided  in  this  supplementary  Ordinance, 
or  under  any  register  or  license  of  this  Government,  shall  carry 
the  flag  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  Mexico,  and 
shall  have  the  figures  1,  8,  2,  4,  cyphered  in  large  Arabics  on  the 
white  ground  thereof.2 

Under  the  ordinances  whose  history  has  been  given,  privateering 
commissions  were  granted  as  follows:  To  S.  Dinsmore,  Jr.,  and 
to  Robert  Potter,  who  later  became  secretary  of  the  navy,  on  De- 
cember 1;  to  Ira  R.  Lewis  and  other  owners  of  the  schooner  Wil- 
liam Bobbins,  on  December  5;  and  to  Benjamin  F.  Smith,  on  De- 
cember 6.  The  minutes  of  the  Council  for  December  6  show  that 
there  was  also  issued,  on  that  day,  a  blank  commission  to  the  com- 
mittee of  safety  for  Matagorda,  to  be  filled  in  for  the  captain  of 
the  William  Robbins;3  but  this  seems  to  have  been  a  repetition 
either  of  the  action  or  of  the  record  concerning  the  same  subject 
on  the  previous  day.  This  was  the  last  commission  of  the  kind 
granted  by  the  Council  and  Governor  Smith.  A  month  later,  Jan- 
uary 7,  1836,  they  seem  to  be  sorry  they  ever  granted  privateering 
commissions  at  all,  as  the  following  request  would  indicate :  "On 
motion  of  Mr.  Barrett  it  was  ordered  that  the  committee  on  Naval 
affairs,  be  requested  to  examine  into  the  expediency  of  retracting 
all  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  heretofore  granted  by  this 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  73,  74,  75,  76.  I  have  one  or  the 
original  commissions  given  to  McKinney  and  Dinsmore. 

^Ordinances  and  Decrees  of  the  Consultation,  etc.,  38;  original  commis- 
sion, Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II,  1. 

"Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  passim. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas*.  17 

Council/'  and  Mr.  Barrett  was  added  to  the  committee  for  this 
special  case.1  On  January  9  the  committee  reported  progress  and 
asked  leave  to  sit  again,  which  was  granted;2  but  nothing  further 
is  heard  from  it.  Two  days  later,  January  11,  Governor 
Smith  made  his  severe  charges  against  the  Council,  and  in 
the  excitement  caused  by  his  impeachment  the  subject  seems  to 
have  been  neglected  till  the  Convention  met. 

The  first  constitution  of  the  Eepublic  conferred  on  Congress  the 
power  to  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal.3  A  proclamation 
by  President  Houston,  dated  September  15,  1837,  declares  that  all 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  granted  under  authority  of  the 
Texan  government  had  been  recalled,  but  that  the  practice  of 
granting  them  is  renewed  from  the  time  when  the  proclamation  is 
made  public.  This  was  because  John  A.  Wharton,  who  had 
landed  at  Matamoras  under  a  white  flag  in  order  to  effect  the  ex- 
change of  his  brother,  William  H.  Wharton,  then  a  prisoner  in 
Mexico,  had  been  arrested  and  detained.4  On  November  2,  1837, 
a  joint  resolution  was  passed  by  Congress  endorsing  the  action  of 
the  president,  and  requesting  him  to  grant  commissions  imme- 
diately to  all  applicants  who  would  comply  with  certain  stated 
conditions.  No  one  availed  himself  of  this  opportunity;  although 
the  government,  by  the  resolution,  reduced  its  share  of  the  value 
of  prizes  to  two  and  one-half  per  cent.  Congress  ordered  the  let- 
ters of  marque  to  be  advertised  in  the  Telegraph,  which  was  done.5 

I  have  purposely  followed  the  granting  of  letters  of  marque 
through  1837,  in  order  finally  to  dispose  of  the  subject.  As  no 
action  followed  the  various  pronunciamentos,  they  savor  a  little  of 
the  Mexican  style  of  conducting  war.  This  remark  does  not  apply 
of  course  to  the  first  half  dozen  commissions  issued,  and  which 
were  actually  used. 

I  have  written  at  length  on  the  subject  of  letters  of  marque, 
because  such  privateers  as  were  fitted  out  proved  of  assistance  to 
Texas  in  the  beginning  of  her  struggle,  in  giving  the  government 

Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  275. 
*IUd.,  286. 
"See  Art.  II,  Sec.  4. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  September  16,  1837. 
.,  September  23,  1837. 


18  Organization  of  the  Navy. 

and  the  people  a  feeling  of  security  from  invasion  bv  sea  by  means 
of  transports  convoyed  by  one  of  the  two  or  three  Mexican  vessels 
then  plying  in  the  Gulf.  Moreover,  the  captures  made  were  very 
helpful  at  this  critical  time,,  and  the  privateers  deserve  no  little 
credit  for  the  help  they  afforded  the  Republic  of  Texas  in  her 
infancy.  Just  how  great  that  help  was  we  shall  see  at  the  proper 
time.  Another  reason  for  treating  this  subject  at  such  length,  is 
that  it  has  been  almost  totally  ignored  by  historians;  and  in  my 
judgment,  having  so  much  to  do  with  the  beginnings  of  the  Texas 
of  to-day,  it  is  deserving  of  a  prominent  place  in  the  history  of 
the  State.  But  one  writer  that  deals  with  Texas  has  any  com- 
ment to  make  on  the  granting  of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
by  the  struggling  colonies.  This  comment  is  so  inconsistent  and 
odd  that  I  give  it.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  man  who  penned  it. 
His  book  is  valuable  for  the  facts  it  contains;  but  when  he  goes 
beyond  facts  his  prejudices  are  so  strong  against  the  Texans  that 
his  judgment  is  warped.  He  says  : 

The  second  way  in  which  the  Provisional  Government  tried  its 
hand  at  robbing  was  in  granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal. 
It  passed  two  acts  with  this  object,  by  the  first  of  which  (Nov.  27), 
it  was  provided  that  twenty  per  cent  of  the  proceeds  of  the  prizes 
should  be  paid  into  the  treasury;  by  the  second  (Nov.  30),  the 
amount  was  reduced  to  ten  per  cent.  In  thus  authorizing  individ- 
uals to  fit  out  privateers,  it  could  plead  the  precedents  of  the  best- 
established  and  most  righteous  governments.1 

He  might  have  added  that  no  nation  ever  had  a  more  righteous 
cause,  or  was  more  in  need  of  the  assistance  to  be  had  only  by  the 
issuance  of  letters  of  marque. 

As  will  be  recalled,  simultaneously  with  the  issuance  of  an  or- 
dinance for  granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  there  was  also 
passed  on  November  25,  1835,  an  ordinance  establishing  a  navy. 
It  is  as  follows  : 


,  Fiscal  History  of  Texas,  27.  Since  the  above  was  written  an- 
other writer  has  mentioned  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in  connection 
with  the  Texas  Revolution.  Eugene  C.  Barker,  referring  to  them  in  Po- 
litical Science  Quarterly,  XIX,  623,  says:  "At  any  rate,  the  matter  is  of 
little  importance,  for  if  any  privateers  were  actually  put  in  commission, 
nothing  was  ever  heard  of  "them."  That  this  statement  is  erroneous  will 
be  demonstrated  in  the  following  chapter. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  19 

SEC.  1.  Be  it  ordained  and  decreed,  and  it  is  hereby  ordained 
and  decreed,  by  the  General  Council  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment of  Texas,  That  there  shall  be,  and  there  is  hereby  estab- 
lished a  Navy,  to  consist  of  two  schooners  of  twelve  guns  each, 
and  two  schooners  of  six  guns  each,  with  the  requisite  number  of 
officers,  seamen  and  marines  for  each  schooner;  and  that  the  said 
schooners  shall,  as  soon  as  practicable,  be  purchased,  armed  and 
equipped  for  warlike  operations,  offensive  and  defensive;  and  that 
they  be  put  in  commission  and  fitted  out,  and  ordered  into  actual 
service;  and  the  commander  and  officers  of  said  ISFavy  shall  be 
under  the  orders  and  directions  of  the  Governor  and  Council. 

SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  ordained  and  decreed,  etc.,  That  the 
Governor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Council,  shall 
nominate  and  appoint  to  the  command  of  said  vessels,  officers  of 
good  character,  courage  and  ability  as  naval  tacticians.  And  the 
said  vessels,  when  so  fitted  out,  manned  and  equipped  for  naval 
operations,  shall  rendezvous  in  Galveston  Bay,  and  the  command- 
ers thereof  report  to  the  Governor  for  further  orders.1 

I  shall  now  relate  the  history  of  the  various  privateers  sailing 
under  letters  of  marque,  or  authorized  by  the  needs  of  the  hour 
to  act  as  vessels  of  war  in  the  defense  of  Texas.  In  doing  this 
strict  chronological  order  will  be  sacrificed  to  unity,  and  the  his- 
tory of  each  vessel  will  be  followed  separately  to  the  end.  This 
should  avoid  confusion,  and  make  a  more  interesting  and  readable 
narrative.  This  course  will  be  adhered  to  throughout  the  work 
wherever  it  seems  to  me  best  so  to  do.  After  the  study  of  the 
privateers,  the  purchasing  of  the  national  vessels  of  war,  their 
armament  and  officers  and  their  various  cruises  will  be  considered, 
each  receiving  such  space  as  its  services  entitle  it  to,  and  as  ma- 
terial for  its  history  has  been  found.  The  work  of  collection  has 
been  difficult,  but  I  have  found  much  that  throws  a  new  and  clearer 
light  on  the  services  rendered  by  the  navy,  and  its  officers  and  men ; 
and  if  I  can  add  to  their  fame  and  that  of  their  vessels  by  an  im- 
partial relation  of  the  facts,  the  work  I  have  undertaken  will  have 
served  its  purpose. 

1Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  931. 


20  The  Texas  Privateers. 

III.      THE   TEXAS   PRIVATEERS. 

The  William  Bobbins  seems  to  me,  after  careful  search,  to  have 
been  the  second  vessel  fitted  out  by  Texas,  the  San  Felipe  being 
the  first.  As  noted  in  chapter  I,  the  William  Bobbins  was  ex- 
pected to  accompany  the  San  Felipe  to  New  Orleans  about  the 
10th  of  November,  1835.  On  the  13th  of  November  we  find  her 
rendering  her  first  service  to  Texas  by  transporting  a  heavy  can- 
non, taken  from  the  wreck  of  the  San  Felipe,  from  Bird  Island 
to  the  Brazos.1  Early  in  November,  the  Mexican  vessels  Monte- 
zuma  and  Bravo  were  reported  to  be  blockading  the  Texas  coast, 
and  the  committee  of  safety  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Matagorda  con- 
sidered it  important  that  a  vessel  should  immediately  be  armed 
and  equipped  to  attack  and  drive  them  off.  The  schooner  William 
Bobbins  was  at  that  time  in  the  Bay  of  Matagorda,  and  by  a  reso- 
lution of  the  committee  Ira  R.  Lewis  and  S.  Ehoads  Fisher  were 
appointed  to  negotiate  the  purchase  of  this  vessel  for  the  Texas 
service.  They  concluded  a  bargain  for  her  at  thirty-five  hundred 
dollars,  but  the  money  was  paid  by  Thomas  F.  McKinney  individ- 
ually, in  order  that  the  government  might  have  the  option  of  buy- 
ing and  using  her  as  a  naval  vessel.2  She  was  placed  under  the 
command  of  William  A.  Hurd.  On  Thursday,  November  19,  1835, 
it  was  reported  in  Matagorda  that  a  schooner,  which  was  afterwards 
found  to  be  the  Hannah  Elizabeth  from  New  Orleans,  had  been 
driven  ashore  at  Paso  Cavallo,  pursued  by  a  Mexican  armed  vessel. 
Early  the  next  morning  the  William  Bobbins,  in  command  of 
Captain  Hurd,  and  with  some  citizens  of  Matagorda  aboard,  went 
to  the  assistance  of  the  stranded  schooner.  On  the  evening  of  the 
21st  they  anchored  at  the  pilot  house  at  the  pass,  and  thus  ascer- 
tained that  the  Mexican  vessel  had  been  driven  by  a  norther  to 
sea,  and  that  the  Hannah  Elizabeth  was  in  possession  of  a  Mex- 
ican prize  crew.  Twenty  volunteers  from  the  William  Bobbins, 
together  with  Captain  Hurd  and  three  of  his  crew,  were  landed, 
all  under  the  command  of  Captain  S.  Rhoads  Fisher.  When  they 
presented  themselves,  the  commander  of  the  prize,  Lieutenant 
Mateo,  of  the  Bravo,  delivered  his  sword,  and  surrendered  himself 


to  Austin,  November  23,  1835,  Austin  Papers. 
"Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  251. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  21 

and  his  eleven  men  as  prisoners  of  war.  Don  Mateo  stated1  that 
the  Hannah  Elizabeth  had  on  board  fifteen  Americans,  and  five 
Mexicans,  besides  a  woman ;  that  it  had  carried  three  cannon  upon 
deck  mounted,  two  sixes  and  a  four;  that  its  cargo  included 
eighteen  kegs  of  powder,  and  muskets  and  rifles.  He  said  that, 
when  he  boarded  her  in  the  breakers  at  7  p.  m.  with  one  boat  and 
eleven  men,  not  a  gun  was  fired,  nor  the  least  resistance  made; 
indeed,  the  cannon  and  small  arms  had  been  thrown  overboard.* 
A  number  of  the  Americans  and  two  Mexicans  who  claimed  an 
interest  in  the  cargo,  Messrs.  Carbajal  and  Fernando  de  Leon, 
were  put  on  board  the  Bravo;  from  which  Captain  Fisher  argues 
that  they  were  great  cowards.  For  Messrs.  Kerr  and  the  two  Mex- 
icans who  were  owners  of  the  cargo,  it  could  be  said  that  their 
object  in  throwing  over  the  cannon  and  muskets  was  to  evade  con- 
fiscation of  the  entire  cargo  for  carrying  contraband  of  war.  Cap- 
tain Hurd  proposed  that  the  cargo  landed  from  the  vessels  be 
taken  to  Matagorda  and  sold.  Peter  Kerr,  a  passenger  on  board, 
who  claimed  a  large  amount  of  the  goods,  objected  and  wished  to 
have  them  sold  on  the  spot  that  he  might  purchase.  Not  knowing 
how  soon  the  Bravo  might  return,  this  was  agreed  to,  and  Captain 
Hurd  ordered  the  sale.  As  the  men  were  not  then  prepared  with 
money,  their  notes  were  taken,  payable  when  they  reached  town. 
Kerr  did  not  want  his  property  sold,  and  proposed  to  pay  as  salv- 
age fifty  per  cent  on  invoice  cost.  This  was  agreed  to,  and  his 
part  set  aside,  notwithstanding  that  he  had  no  evidence  of  owner- 
ship. His  part  amounted  to  $2541.  The  balance  of  the  goods  was 
sold  to  various  members  of  the  expedition,  and  brought  at  auction 
$2843.83.  Captain  Fisher  was  publicly  appointed  agent  by  Cap- 
tain Hurd,  bills  were  made  out,  and  notes  drawn.  On  the  6th  of 

*A  large  printed  hand-bill  addressed  "To  the  People  of  Texas,"  Mata- 
gorda, December  17,  1835.  By  S.  Rhoads  Fisher.  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II, 
23.  This  version  of  this  story  of  the  Hannah  Elizabeth  I  have  accepted 
as  the  most  reliable.  While  it  is  a  personal  vindication  of  S.  Rhoads 
Fisher,  and  assails  Governor  Smith  and  particularly  J.  W.  Fannin,  Jr.,  it 
is  attested  on  oath  by  leading  citizens  of  Texas,  and  eyewitnesses  of  the 
entire  transaction. 

2V.  M.  Rose,  History  of  Victoria  County,  14,  111,  154,  contains  much 
information  about  the  Hannah  Elizabeth — "Her  cargo  of  500  muskets, 
two  pieces  of  artillery,  with  a  full  equipment  of  ammunition  valued  at 
$35,000." 


22  The  Texas  Privateers. 

December  Captain  Fisher  wrote  an  account,  in  accordance  with  the 
facts  as  narrated  above,  to  E.  E.  Eoyall,  a  member  of  the  Council. 
In  this  letter  Captain  Fisher  asked  the  Council  to  adjudicate  the 
matter;  he  said  that  the  re-capture  of  the  Hannah  Elizabeth  made 
it  either  a  legal  prize  or  the  property  of  the  salvors,  and  that  he 
was  the  agent  to  represent  either  captors  or  salvors.  It  seems, 
however,  that  before  Captain  Fisher's  letter  reached  the  Council 
the  governor  had  received  another,  severely  condemning  the  whole 
proceeding.  It  was  written  by  Col.  J.  W.  Fannin,  Jr. 

To  follow  the  history  further,  it  will  be  necessary  to  return  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  General  Council.  As  already  noted,  a  letter 
of  marque  was  granted  to  the  owners  of  the  William  Bobbins  on 
December  5,  1835.1  On  December  11,  J.  W.  Fannin,  Jr.,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  from  Matagorda  to  his  excellency,  Governor  Henry 
Smith,  and  the  General  Council,2  which  agrees  with  Ehoads 
Fisher's  statement,  and  gives  further  details.  He  says  that  one 
of  the  Bravo3 's  parties  in  passing  from  the  schooner  in  its  small 
boat  was  capsized  in  the  breakers,  and  with  difficulty  got  on  board 
again;  while  their  boat  drifted  ashore  and  was  discovered  by  a 
man  named  Somers  and  two  companions.  "They  immediately 
got  possession  of  the  boat  and  with  their  firearms  kept  it,  and 
prevented  the  Mexicans  from  retaking  it,  and  by  this  means  pre- 
vented an  escape  to  the  Bravo  of  the  whole  party,  who  had  been 
ordered  to  rob,  and  afterwards  burn  and  desert  the  schooner.  In 
the  meantime,  a  party  from  this  town  was  got  up,  and  proceeded 
below  with  the  schooner  William  Bobbins,  recently  purchased  and 
armed  for  the  public  use.  S.  Ehoads  Fisher  commanded  the  ma- 
rines, and  Captain  Hurd,  recently  of  the  schooner  San  Felipe,  the 
crew  of  the  William  Bobbins.  .  .  .  When  said  party  landed 
and  marched  across,  they  found  Somers  and  party  walking  their 
regular  rounds,  having  kept  up  a  guard  for  about  two  days,  the 
lieutenant  and  crew  having  previously  agreed  to  surrender,  when 
an  officer  should  appear  to  receive  his  sword,  and  thus  save  Mex- 
ican honor."  Fannin  then  makes  insinuating  charges  against 

X0r  December  6;  see  Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  109,  114.  Cf. 
p.  16  above. 

2This  letter  I  find  only  in  Fisher's  hand-bill,  "To  the  People  of  Texas." 
See  p.  21  above,  note  1.  The  minutes  of  the  Council  and  the  Governor's 
message  merely  refer  to  it. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  23 

Captains  Fisher  and  Hurd,  and  claims  that  the  sale  was  a  very 
dishonest  one.  After  reading  this  letter,  Governor  Smith,  with- 
out hearing  anything  from  the  other  side,  sent  a  scathing  message 
to  the  Council,1  asking  it  to  look  into  and  sift  the  matter.  He 
referred  to  those  who  took  part  in  the  transaction  as  "bone  pick- 
ers, who  are  eagle-eyed,  ever  hovering  around  to  pounce  upon  their 
unfortunate  prey/'  and  said  that  he  was  "well  aware  of  the  in- 
trigue, management  and  downright  roguery,  which  has  been  uni- 
versally practiced  by  the  unprincipled  speculators/' 

The  letter  was  referred  to  a  committee,  which  on  December  17 
made  a  report,  accompanied  by  an  ordinance  to  sequester  and  se- 
cure the  cargo  of  the  schooner  Hannah  Elizabeth,  and  advising 
that  commissioners  be  appointed  with  power  to  seize  and  sequester 
.he  schooner,  arrest  persons,  and  suspend  the  commission  of  the 
commander  of  the  William  Bobbins,  if  the  facts  in  the  case  jus- 
tified such  a  course,  and  report  to  the  Council.2  The  report  was 
adopted,  and  three  commissioners  were  appointed.  On  December 
22,  E.  R.  Royall  presented  letters  on  the  subject  from  J.  G.  Rob- 
ertson and  S.  Rhoads  Fisher  to  the  Council,3  which  were  placed 
on  file.  On  January  3,  1836,  Governor  Smith  transmitted  to  the 
Council  the  report  of  Thomas  Barnett,  one  of  the  commissioners, 
which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  State  and  Judiciary.4 
The  next  day  the  committee  reported  a  request  that  two  new 
commissioners  be  appointed  to  act  with  Barnett  in  place  of  the 
two  originally  appointed,  but  their  report  was  tabled.5  On  Janu- 
ary 7  it  was  brought  up  again  and  the  addition  of  another  com- 
missioner to  the  three  already  appointed  was  recommended.6  The 
explanation  of  this  is  that  some  of  the  commissioners  who  had 
been  appointed  either  were  not  in  Texas  or  would  not  act.7 

This  is  the  last  we  hear  of  the  Hannah  Elizabeth  in  the  General 
Council  or  from  the  governor.     The  quarrel  between  the  Council 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  167-168. 
zIUd.,   168,   172-173. 


193. 
*IUd.,  249. 
5IUd.,  254. 
'Ibid.,  271,  272. 
TPapers   of   the    "Provisional    Congress,"    Department   of    State,   File    3, 


24  The  Texas  Prwatee/rs. 

and  governor  occurred  soon  after,  and  the  report  of  the  Hannah 
Elizabeth  committee  was  left  on  the  table.  S.  Khoads  Fisher, 
however,  did  not  let  the  matter  drop.  He  was  very  angry  and 
wrote  Colonel  J.  W.  Fannin,  who  made  the  charges  against  him, 
a  fiercely  vituperative  letter,  charging  him  with  being  "incapable 
of  adhering  to  the  first  principles  of  either  .  .  .  discretion  or 
truth,"  and  with  bringing  from  Africa  slaves  whose  "native  lingo 
yet  betrays  their  recent  importation."  The  letter  contained  an 
implied  invitation  to  Fannin  to  reply  with  a  challenge.  He  was, 
however,  too  busy  with  his  share  in  the  campaign  that  was  just 
then  opening  to  turn  aside  for  a  private  quarrel,  and  a  few  weeks 
later  came  his  death  at  Goliad.1 

Both  Fisher  and  Fannin  were  in  error;  the  latter  in  making 
his  charges  without  sufficient  examination  or  foundation,  the 
former  in  taking  Fannin  to  task  too  severely  for  the  charges.  At 
the  worst,  they  implied  nothing  but  a  sharp  business  speculation, 
possibly  not  according  to  law.  While  they  were  disproved  by 
Fisher,  he  was  not  justified  in  going  to  the  length  he  did  in  his 
letter. 

I  have  purposely  dwelt  at  length  on  the  Hannah  Elizabeth,  the 
William  Bobbins,  and  Captains  Hurd  and  Fisher,  because  Yoakum, 
Thrall,  the  Proceedings  of  the  General  Council*  and  other  authori- 
ties or  sources,  mention  the  charges  and  even  comment  in  a  deroga- 
tory way,  without  mentioning  the  defense.  As  a  further  and  final 
proof  that  the  transaction  was  not  a  swindling  affair,  Captain  Hurd 
was  soon  after  this  made  an  officer  by  the  General  Convention  of 
Texas,  and  placed  in  command  of  the  government  vessel  Brutus* 
S.  Ehoads  Fisher  was  made  chairman  of  the  naval  committee  at  the 
same  time  by  the  General  Convention,  and  later  on  was  secretary 
of  the  navy.  No  vindication  could  better  testify  to  their  character 
and  proper  conduct  in  the  case  in  question  than  this  elevation  at 
the  hands  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

Nearly  twenty  years  later  Peter  Kerr  was  reimbursed  by  the 

Wisher  to  Fannin,  January  12,  1836,  in  Fisher's  Broadside  "To  the 
People  of  Texas."  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  II,  23. 

2Yoakum,  II,  38;  Thrall,  219;  Proceedings  of  the  General  Council, 
passim. 

3Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  891. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  25 

"mixed  commission"  of  the  United  States,  for  his  loss  in  the  Han- 
nah Elizabeth.  As  the  prisoners  taken  by  the  Bravo  and  William 
Robbins  were  about  equal  in  number,  on  December  27,  1835,  the 
Council  requested  the  governor  to  correspond  with  the  command- 
ing officer  at  Matamoras,  with  a  view  of  exchanging.1  Nothing 
further  is  to  be  found  regarding  an  exchange,  but  that  the  United 
States  government  claimed  the  credit  of  releasing  all  the  prisoners 
except  the  captain  of  the  Hannah  Elizabeth,  through  the  agency 
of  their  consul  stationed  at  Matamoras.2  The  Bravo  we  do  not 
hear  of  again  until  about  April,  1836,  when  she  was  one  of  three 
Mexican  vessels  which  engaged  the  Texan  man  of  war  Independ- 
ence in  a  drawn  battle.  The  New  Orleans  newspapers  of  July, 
1836,  mention  that  she  was  lost  while  on  her  way  from  Matamoras 
to  Vera  Cruz,  and  all  on  board  perished  with  the  exception  of 
Captain  Thompson  and  two  marines. 

As  to  the  William  Robbins,  negotiations  were  at  this  time  being 
carried  on  by  the  Council  for  her  purchase,  with  the  object  of 
making  a  national  war  vessel  of  her.  These  negotiations  were  sat- 
isfactorily concluded,  and  she  became  the  Texan  war  vessel  Lib- 
erty. It  seems  worth  while  briefly  to  recount  them  here.  The 
commissioners  to  the  United  States  appear  to  have  bought,  or  to 
have  believed  they  had  bought,  the  William  Robbins  (the  name 
of  which  they  changed  to  the  Liberty)  while  on  their  way  to  New 
Orleans.3  But  there  must  have  been  some  misunderstanding  about 
the  matter;  for,  on  January  3,  1836,  a  communication  was  laid 
before  the  Council  from  Thomas  F.  McKinney,  offering  the  Wil- 
liam Robbins  for  sale  to  the  government,4  and  the  Committee  on 
Naval  Affairs  recommended  that  an  agent  be  appointed  to  examine 
the  vessel  with  a  view  to  purchasing.  The  report  of  the  committee 
was  adopted  by  the  Council,5  and  on  January  5th  a  decree  was 
passed  appointing  Edmund  Andrews  and  Wm.  P.  Harris  agents  to 
examine  the  William  Robbins  and  the  Invincible,  and  providing 

1  Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  215. 

2See  National  Intelligencer,  February  14,  1837. 

3See  Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  277 ;  Austin,  Archer,  and  Whar- 
ton  to  Smith,  January  10,  1836,  in  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  State  Library. 

*Cf.  p.  20  above. 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  251-252. 


26  The  Texas  Privateers. 

for  their  purchase  if  the  report  was  favorable.1  Governor  Smith 
approved  of  the  ordinance  with  the  exception  of  the  provision  for 
sending  agents  to  purchase  ihe-William  Bobbins.  As  she  had  al- 
ready been  purchased  by  the  commissioners  to  the  United  States, 
acting  under  the  governor's  instructions,  in  pursuance  of  a  decree  of 
the  Council,2  he  did  not  want  to  create  confusion  by  refusing  their 
purchase  of  the  vessel  for  the  government.3  Notwithstanding  the 
governor's  protest,  the  ordinance  passed  without  amendment  by 
a  constitutional  majority  on  the  8th  of  January;  but  Governor 
Smith  never  signed  or  returned  it,  as  is  noted  in  the  ordinance 
itself.4  This  is  the  last  we  hear  of  the  purchase  of  the  William 
Bobbins  in  the  Council;  for  on  the  llth  of  January  the  Governor 
made  his  famous  charge  against  the  Council,  and  everything  was 
sidetracked  for  his  impeachment  and  trial.  However,  as  the  Wil- 
liam Bobbins  became  the  Liberty,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the 
purchase  by  the  commissioners  was  accepted  as  legal  and  binding; 
and  when  we  later  take  up  the  study  of  the  Liberty  as  a  national 
war  vessel,  we  shall  be  but  completing  the  history  of  the  William 
Bobbins,  privateer. 

The  third  Texan  privateer  was  the  Terrible,  commanded  at  dif- 
ferent times  by  Captain  John  M.  Allen,  later  mayor  of  the  City 
of  Galveston,  and  by  Lieutenant  Eandolph.  The  Terrible  sailed 
under  a  letter  of  marque  procured  on  the  8th  of  November,  1835, 
by  A.  C.  Allen,  as  already  related.5  Little  of  her  history  is  known, 
save  that  she  patrolled  the  Gulf,  and  by  her  watchfulness,  if  not 
numerous  prizes,  made  herself  helpful  to  Texas.  From  the  New 
Orleans  papers6  I  find  that  while  cruising  she  was  taken  in  charge 
by  the  United  States  war  vessel  Boston,  and  carried  to  Pensacola; 
but  the  offense  with  which  she  was  charged  having  been  committed 
on  waters  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  she  was  turned  over 
to  John  H.  Holland,  Esq.,  marshal  of  this  district  of  Louisiana. 
These  charges  were:  1st,  that  the  Terrible  was  fitted  out  at  New 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  263;  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I, 
1031. 

28ee  Ordinances  and  Decrees  of  the  Consultation,  etc.,  52-54. 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  277-278. 

*Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  1033. 

5See  p.  10  above. 

"Clipping  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  I,  25.  The  clipping  is  probably  from  the 
~New  Orleans  Bee  of  date  not  earlier  than  October  1,  nor  later  than  Octo- 
ber 5. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  27 

Orleans  to  wage  war  against  a  government  with  whom  the  United 
States  was  at  peace;  2d,  that  the  commander,  Lieutenant  Ran- 
dolph, had  manifested  the  intention  of  committing  an  act  of  piracy 
upon  a  Sardinian  vessel,  the  Pelicana  Mexicana;  3d,  that  he  had 
sailed  from  this  port  without  the  authorization  of  the  collector. 
She  was  discharged  and  soon  afterward  proceeded  to  sea.  No  par- 
ticulars are  given.  From  the  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register*  and 
the  brief  comment  of  Lieutenant  Tennison,2  it  is  noted  that  under 
the  command  of  Captain  John  M.  Allen,  the  Terrible  cruised  up 
and  down  the  coast  of  Mexico.  During  the  cruise  the  Terrible 
captured  between  Sisal  and  Campeachy,  the  Mexican  sloop  Ma- 
tilda, loaded  with  dry  goods  and  provisions,  and  sent  it  into  Gal- 
veston  to  be  adjudicated.  The  last  mention  of  her  that  I  can  find 
is  by  Tennison,  who  reports  her  off  the  Northeast  pass  of  the 
Mississippi  on  the  12th  of  August,  18363  It  is  probable  that  when 
her  commission  expired  she  went  into  the  regular  coasting  trade. 
The  fourth  vessel  to  sail  as  a  privateer  in  the  Texas  service  was 
the  Thomas  Toby,  previously  the  De  Kalb,  in  the  trade  service  be- 
tween New  Orleans  and  Texas.  Her  commander  was  Captain 
Hoyt.  As  in  the  case  of  the  Terrible,  little  can  be  found  concern- 
ing this  vessel.  Tennison  calls  attention  to  a  cruise  she  made  in 
October,  1836,  in  the  following  words  : 


August  16,  1836. 

2Tennison's  Journal,  entry  for  August  11,  1836;  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  VI, 
326.  The  Tennison  Papers,  which  are  the  most  valuable  materials  for  the 
history  of  the  first  Texas  navy  that  I  know  of,  came  into  my  possession 
by  purchase.  My  attention  was  first  called  to  them  years  ago  by  the  late 
Judge  C.  W.  Raines  of  the  State  Library  at  Austin.  By  copies  of  official 
documents  sent  me  from  the  Naval  Library  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  through 
the  kindness  of  Secretary  Long  and  Librarian  Eawson,  I  was  enabled  posi- 
tively to  prove  the  papers  to  be  Tennison's.  Wm.  A.  Tennison  entered  the 
Texas  naval  service  in  the  beginning  of  the  navy,  1836,  and  remained  with 
it  to  the  last,  having  the  honor  to  deliver  the  remnant  of  the  Texas  navy 
to  the  United  States  authorities  after  annexation.  His  papers  and  journal 
are  all  in  manuscript,  and  have  never  been  used.  The  fact  that  he  makes 
many  references  to  other  vessels  and  naval  events  than  those  with  which  he 
had  to  do  directly,  leads  me  to  believe  that  he  selected  some  of  these  outside 
materials  from  articles  in  the  current  papers  of  that  period.  Where  Ten- 
nison later  describes  his  own  experience  on  board  Texan  vessels,  his  journal 
is  no  doubt  in  part  a  copy  of  the  log  books  of  the  vessels;  for  officers 
were  in  the  habit  of  keeping  journals  and  copying  log  books.  This,  of 
course,  can  not  be  proved,  since  the  log  books  of  the  first  navy  are  all  lost, 
and  only  parts  of  one  or  two  of  the  second  navy  exist  ;  but  it  seems  certain. 

3Ibid.,  entry  for  September  3,  1836. 


28  The  Texas  Privateers. 

The  Texan  privateer  Thomas  Toby  (late  De  Kalb)  Hoyt  com- 
mander has  been  cruising  off  the  ports  of  Vera  Cruz,  Sisal,  Cam- 
peachy,  Matamoras,  and  Tampico,  since  the  first  week  in  October, 
and  had  captured,  about  the  12th  inst  a  Mexican  schooner,  and 
sent  her  into  Texas.  She  soon  after  run  in  towards  the  fort  at  the 
mouth  of  the  river,  and  playing  her  "long  torn"  upon  it  for  some 
time,  without,  however,  doing  much  damage,  except  frightening  the 
good  people  of  the  town  nearly  out  of  their  wits,  who  supposing 
her  to  be  the  vanguard  of  the  Texian  navy  turned  out  en  masse, 
repaired  to  the  fort  and  along  the  river  banks  determined  to  repel 
any  hostile  movement  of  the  imaginary  Texian  fleet.  The  com- 
mander of  the  privateer  soon  after  transmitted  a  chaleng  to  the 
commandant  of  Tampico  requesting  a  meeting  with  any  armed 
Mexican  vessel  which  might  be  in  port;  but  receiving  no  answer 
within  a  reasonable  time,  she  stood  off  and  spoke  the  Louisiana  de- 
termined to  capture  all  Mexican  property  she  fell  in  with.1 

The  same  writer  in  another  entry  says: 

The  Thomas  Toby  has  just  sent  into  Galveston  harbor  a  very 
valuable  prize,  being  a  large  fine  brig,  strongly  built,  and  capable 
of  being  fitted  out  as  a  man  of  war,  bearing  guns  heavier  than  any 
now  in  the  Mexican  Navy.  She  was  captured  on  the  coast  of 
Campeachy  and  has  on  board  200  tons  of  salt.  The  Tom  Toby 
when  last  seen  was  in  hot  pursuit  of  two  Mexican  schooners;  this 
pursuit  will  undoubtedly  prove  successful,  as  "Fortune  ever  favors 
the  brave."  It  is  gratifying  to  reflect  that  our  flag  flaunts  over  one 
brave  band,  whose  dauntless  spirits  delight  to  career  with  the 
"stormy  petrel,"  over  the  tossing  billows  where  danger  lights  the 
"Path  to  glory  and  to  fame."2 

In  the  early  part  of  February,  1837,  a  mutiny  was  reported  to 
have  taken  place  on  the  Thomas  Toby  in  which  the  doctor  and 
purser  were  said  to  have  been  murdered.  The  mutiny  was  quelled, 
and  the  murderers  lodged  in  prison  in  ISFew  Orleans.3  The  secre- 
tary of  the  navy  in  his  report  of  September  30,  1837,4  recom- 
mended the  purchase  of  the  vessel  by  the  government;  but  before 
this  recommendation  could  be  acted  upon,  she  was  lost  in  the  great 
storm  off  Galveston,  in  October,  1837.5 

^ennison's  Journal,  November  10,  1836. 

2Tennison's  Journal,  Thursday,  June  8,  1837.  This  capture  of  the  brig 
loaded  with  salt  is  briefly  noted  by  the  National  Intelligencer,  August  2, 
1837. 

National  Intelligencer,  February  25,   1837. 

4Archives  of  the  Department  of  State,  Texas. 

5Tennison  Papers,  332. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  29 

Many  years  afterwards  two  cannon  were  found  near  Virginia 
Point,  and  identified  as  those  belonging  to  the  Thomas  Toby;  they 
were  purchased  by  the  Galveston  Artillery  Company.  These  par- 
ticular cannon  had  been  presented  to  Texas  by  the  ladies  of  Hav- 
ana, as  the  following  letter  indicates : 

War  Department,  Columbia, 

Dec.  3rd,  1836. 
To  Messrs.  Thomas  Toby  and  Bros. : 

Gents.  I  am  instructed  by  the  house  of  Representatives  of  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  to  take  necessary  measures  to  procure  two 
pieces  of  cannon  (brass)  which  were  presented  by  the  ladies  of 
Havana  to  the  Republic.  By  a  letter  received  by  Messrs.  Shriver 
and  Grayson,  it  appears  that  they  received  from  you  on  board  the 
schooner  Thomas  Toby  two  brass  cannons,  and  they  are  under  the 
impression  they  are  the  pieces  alluded  to.  You  will  please  inform 
me  as  soon  as  possible  if  such  is  the  case. 

WILLIAM  G.  COOK, 

Acting  Sec't'y- 

The  Thomas  Toby  was  named  for  the  government  agent  of 
Texas  in  New  Orleans.1  It  was  said  in  a  New  Orleans  paper 
that  the  vessel  was  commanded  by  Captain  Suares.2  I  can  find  his 
name  mentioned  but  once,  and  in  no  other  place,  and  presume  that 
he  must  have  been  the  first  lieutenant  who  temporarily  had  com- 
mand; it  is  possible  also  that  this  was  a  typographical  error  for 
(Jas.)  Sever,  who  later  was  lieutenant  on  the  Invincible. 

The  Flash,  Captains  Luke  A.  Falvel,  and  Marstella,  seems  to 
have  been  the  next  privateer  fitted  out  for  Texas — under  just  what 
circumstances,  and  by  whom  I  am  unable  to  discover.  On  March 
12,  1836,  Falvel  received  his  commission  as  captain  in  the  navy 
from  Robert  Potter,  and  the  crew  was  sworn  in.3  The  Flash  was 
ordered  to  proceed  to  the  south  of  the  Brazos,  take  on  board  all 
the  women  and  children  in  that  section  of  the  country  who  were 
fleeing  before  the  Mexican  advance,  in  the  "Runaway  Scrape/' 
carry  them  to  Morgan's  Point,  at  the  head  of  Galveston  Bay,  and 
defend  that  place  in  the  event  of  an  attack.  Upon  this  occasion 

TShipinan,  Frontier  Life,  386. 

"Clipping  in  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  I,  25.  The  clipping  is  probably  from  the 
Commercial  Bulletin,  but  its  date  is  uncertain. 

3Ben  C.  Stuart  in  Galveston  News,  October  8,  1899.  The  Proceedings  of 
the  General  Council  do  not  mention  Falvel. 


30  The  Texas  Privateers. 

the  Flash  had  on  board  the  two  famous  pieces  of  artillery  known 
as  the  "Twin  Sisters/'  which  did  such  execution  in  the  battle  of 
San  Jacinto  a  short  time  after;  and  upon  arriving  at  Morgan's 
Point  they  were  sent  up  to  Harrisburg  on  the  sloop  Opie,  Lieu- 
tenant Aaron  Burns,  and  delivered  to  the  proper  officers.  A  short 
time  after  the  arrival  of  the  Flash  at  Morgan's  Point  the  express 
rider  for  the  Texas  Cabinet,  Michael  McCormick,  came  in  and  re- 
ported that  he  was  unable  to  find  the  Texan  army,  which  was  sup- 
posed to  be  on  the  retreat.  Upon  receipt  of  this  intelligence,  Cap- 
tain Falvel  was  ordered  to  take  on  board  all  the  families  about  the 
bay,  and  proceed  towards  Galveston  Island.  Accordingly  there 
were  embarked  on  board  the  Flash  all  the  members  of  the  Texan 
Cabinet  who  were  at  the  Point,  together  with  their  wives  and 
children.  Among  the  number  were  Bailey  Hardeman,  secretary 
of  state,  his  wife  and  two  sons;  Colonel  Thomas,  secretary  of  the 
treasury;  Colonel  Eobert  Potter,  secretary  of  the  navy;  Mrs.  Bur- 
net,  wife  of  President  Burnet,  and  her  son  William;  Lorenzo  de 
Zavala  and  his  three  children.  President  Burnet  declined  to  leave ; 
and  upon  Captain  Falvel's  asking  for  instructions,  he  was  directed 
to  proceed  at  once  to  Galveston  Island  with  the  women  and  chil- 
dren, and  defend  the  place  if  an  attack  were  made.  The  next 
morning  the  vessel  had  proceeded  down  the  bay  to  a  point  mid- 
way between  Clapper's  Point  and  Eed  Fish  Bars,  when  President 
Burnet  came  on  board  in  a  small  boat.  On  arriving  at  Galveston 
Island,  the  Flash  came  to  anchor  off  the  old  Mexican  customhouse, 
which  stood  near  the  corner  of  Avenue  A.  and  Eleventh  Street. 
The  next  day,  April  20,  the  women  and  children  were  landed  and 
the  Flash  proceeded  to  Fort  Point,  in  order  to  defend  the  place 
if  attacked  by  sea.  During  the  trip  there  were  about  150  persons 
on  the  little  vessel.  One  historian1  says  that  on  April  26th  "Most 
of  the  families  of  refugees  were  already  on  the  schooner  Flash, 
Captain  Falvel,  ready  to  sail  for  New  Orleans,  and  had  orders  to 
sail  that  morning  as  Santa  Anna  was  expected  every  day  at  the 
Island.  The  captain  declined  to  attempt  to  cross  the  bar  until 
there  was  a  change  of  wind,  and  while  waiting,  the  messenger, 
Col.  Calder,  arrived  with  the  news  of  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto; 

lThrall,  521. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  31 

this  victory  put  a  quietus  on  the  terror  stricken  inhabitants  of 
Texas  who  were  fleeing  the  country."  In  May,  1837,  the  Flash 
was  reported  stranded  on  shore.1  Whether  she  got  off  at  this  time 
and  later  suffered  another  accident,  I  cannot  find  out;  but  it  is 
possibly  to  the  same  mishap  that  another  writer2  refers  when  he 
says  that  the  Flash,  under  Captain  Marstella,  was  lost  at  the  west 
dnd  of  the  island  (Galveston),  her  captain  having  mistaken  San 
Luis  pass  for  the  entrance  to  Galveston  harbor.  Among  the 
special  laws  passed  at  the  the  extra  session  of  the  Tenth  Legisla- 
ture, number  twenty-three,  there  is  an  appropriation  of  "$5022.21 
to  Luke  A.  Falvel  for  services  as  sailing  master  in  the  navy  of 
the  late  Eepublic  of  Texas,  and  authorizing  the  comptroller  to 
pay  the  same  in  the  new  issue  of  Confederate  Treasury  notes."3 
This  is  the  last  item  that  I.  have  been  able  to  obtain  relative  to  the 
Flash  and  her  commander. 

The  next  armed  vessel  which  assisted  Texas,  was  the  steamboat 
Ocean,  Captain  Gray  son,  the  same  who,  as  lieutenant,  was  left  in 
charge  of  the  San  Felipe,  as  related  in  chapter  I.  This  vessel 
was  paid  for  mainly  by  the  aid  of  subscriptions  of  citizens  of  Mo- 
bile, her  equipment  costing  some  five  to  eight  thousand  dollars.4 
It  was  on  board  the  Ocean  that  the  notorious  H.  A.  Hubbell  and 
the  volunteers  from  New  Orleans  arrived  on  June  3  at  Velasco,6 
and  had  Santa  Anna  taken  to  shore,  as  he  was  about  to  depart  for 
Mexico,  in  conformity  with  the  treaty  entered  into  by  him  and 
the  Texas  government.  In  July,  1836,  we  find  her  again  giving 
help  to  the  Texas  cause.  The  schooner  Brutus  was  at  Matagorda, 
blockaded  by  the  Mexican  brig  of  war  Vencedor  del  Alamo,  and 
she  was  expected  to  be  relieved  "by  the  sen's  Invincible,  Union, 
and  other  vessels  that  had  gone  there  in  tow  of  the  steamboat 
Ocean,  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  the  brig.  The  steamboat  was 
laden  with  volunteers,  and  for  her  protection  there  was  raised  a 
breastwork  of  cotton  bales.6  She  was  successful  in  rescuing  the 

^National  Intelligencer,  May  30,   1837. 

2Ben  C.  Stuart,  in  the  Galveston  News,  October  8,  1899. 

"Texas  Almanac,  1865,  p.  34. 

*A  Vindication  of  the  Conduct  of  the  Agency  of  Texas,  a  pamphlet  by 
William  Bryan,  in  Dienst.  Col.  Doc.,  II,  16. 

5El  Correo  Atlantico,  New  Orleans,  June  20,  1836.  Thrall  (547)  calls 
her  the  "Ocean  Queen." 

"New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  July  18,  1836. 


32  Naval  Vessels  Bought  and  Equipped. 

Brutus  from  her  perilous  position.    As  to  what  became  of  her  later 
on,  there  are  no  data.    ' 

This  finishes  the  last  of  those  vessels  that  served  as  regularly 
commissioned  privateers,  and  that  can  properly  be  termed  Texan 
vessels,  acting  as  a  navy  for  Texas  until  her  vessels  of  war  were 
fully  prepared  to  defend  her  coast.  There  were  other  vessels  that 
aided  Texas,  notably  the  Julius  Caesar,  Captains  Lightburn  and 
Moore;  the  Champion;  the  Flora;  the  Yellow  Stone,  commanded 
by  Captain  Grayson ;  and  other  vessels  that  acted  as  transports  for 
munitions  of  war  and  provisions,  and  in  bringing  volunteers  to 
Texas.  Since,  however,  their  registers  and  papers  emanated  from 
the  United  States  Government,  and  they  were  ostensibly  in  the 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  Texas,  they  can  not  be  given 
a  distinct  place  in  a  history  of  the  Texas  Navy.  Nor  did  they 
win  any  great  victory;  but  in  the  formative  days  of  the  new  Ee- 
public  the  value  of  these  small  privateers  to  the  government  of 
Texas,  in  captures,  and  in  protection  of  the  coast  was  incalculable, 
and  deserves  honorable  mention.  Let  not  Texas  in  her  present 
greatness  despise  the  day  of  small  things. 

IV.      NAVAL  VESSELS  BOUGHT  AND  EQUIPPED. 

The  navy  of  Texas  became  a  reality  in  January  and  February, 
1836,  when  four  vessels  of  war  were  purchased.  These  were  the 
Liberty,  Invincible,  Independence,  and  Brutus;  and  during  1836 
and  1837  they  comprised  the  total  strength  of  the  navy.  The 
Liberty  was  the  rechristened  William  Bobbins,  and  we  have  al- 
ready seen  how  the  government  acquired  it.1  At  the  same  time 
that  the  purchase  of  the  William  Bobbins  was  authorized  (Jan- 
uary 3)  the  naval  committee  of  the  General  Council  reported 
that  "Messrs.  McKinney  and  Williams,  through  Mr.  Williams, 
have  made  a  purchase  of,  and  equipped  a  schooner  of  about  one 
hundred  and  twenty-six  tons  burthen,  adapted  to  the  object  of 
protecting  our  commerce  against  the  enemy.  This  vessel,  called 
the  ( In  vincible/  is  now  in  the  Bay  of  Galveston,  and  is  generously 
offered  to  the  Government  of  Texas,  by  the  owners,  at  first  cost 
and  charges."  The  committee  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  pro- 

^ee  above,  pp.  25-26. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  33 

tection  of  our  own  commerce,  the  destruction  of  that  of  the  enemy, 
and  the  transportation  of  our  supplies  by  water  were  of  the  high- 
est importance,  and  made  the  possession  of  an  adequate  naval  force 
indispensable;  they  therefore  advised  that  "a  suitable  agent  be 
appointed  to  examine  the  schooner  'Invincible/  and  her  equip- 
ments, and  if  suited  to  the  objects  of  cruising  in  the  Gulf,  or  about 
our  coasts  that  an  immediate  purchase  be  made  of  the  vessel." 
The  report  was  adopted,  and  an  ordinance  making  it  effective  was 
passed  on  January  5,  18 3 6.1  The  same  ordinance  also  adopted  the 
United  States  naval  regulations  for  Texas. 

As  has  already  been  stated,  Governor  Smith  did  not  believe  that 
the  Council  should  create  confusion  by  meddling  with  a  power 
delegated  to  the  commissioners  to  the  United  States,  and  on  Janu- 
ary 6,  he  asked  for  the  particulars  respecting  the  Invincible.2 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  quarrel  between  the  governor  and 
the  Council;  and  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  Invincible  we  must  fol- 
low it.  On  the  8th  a  committee  to  which  had  been  referred  the 
governor's  message  asking  for  information,  reported  that  the  or- 
dinance which  was  now  in  his  hands  would  furnish  all  the  in- 
formation necessary.  At  a  special  evening  session  the  same  day 
Mr.  Barret  offered  the  following  resolutions : 

Whereas,  the  Mexican  sloop  of  war,  Montezuma,  is  now  reported! 
to  be  in  the  bay  of  Galveston,  and  Texas  is  not  in  full  possession  of 
any  vessel  of  sufficient  force  to  meet  her  in  action,  and  whereas 
the  schooner  Invincible  is  offered  to  the  government  of  Texas,  b;y 
Messrs.  McKinney  and  Williams,  upon  terms  which  Government 
accepts,  therefore, 

Be  it  resolved,  that  a  register  of  said  schooner  Invincible  be 
made  as  the  property  of  the  Government,  under  he  directions  of 
the  Governor,  who  is  hereby  authorized  to  execute  the  same,  and 
give  a  duplicate  thereof  into  the  hands  of  Thomas  F.  McKinney, 
as  evidence  of  the  ownership  of  said  vessel,  and  to  retain  the  other 
on  the  files  of  the  execuive  office. 

Be  it  further  resolved,  that  the  governor  is  advised  and  author- 
ized to  issue  to  Thomas  F.  Mc^nney,  a  letter  of  appointment  as 
commander  of  the  schooner  Invincible,  as  a  national  vessel  of  war, 
removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Governor  and  Council,  and  in- 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  250-252;   Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas, 
I,  1031-1033. 
266. 


34  Naval  Vessels  Bought  and  Equipped. 

struct  said  McKinney  to  take  command  of  said  vessel  of  war,  and 
man  and  provide  her  for  a  criuse  against  the  enemy,  within  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  or  any  of  its  waters,  until  further  ordered.1  .  .  . 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  committee  of  two  instructed 
to  wait  on  the  governor  with  the  purpose  of  immediately  carrying 
it  into  effect.  Just  what  took  place  between  this  committee  and 
the  governor  has  never  transpired,  but  the  governor  was  greatly 
angered  against  the  Council,  as  his  message  will  prove.  He  evi- 
dently gained  the  impression  that  the  Council  was  trying  by  foul 
means  to  drive  him  to  do  its  will  regardless  of  his  own  opinions. 
It  will  be  recalled  that  he  was  hurried  into  granting  letters  of 
marque  by  the  report  that  the  Montezuma  was  endangering  the 
Texan  coast.2  It  was  either  a  strange  coincidence,  thought  the 
governor,  that  just  as  another  law  relative  to  the  navy  was  being 
passed  the  Montezuma  should  re-appear,  or  that  the  men  who 
wished  to  pass  the  bill  recalled  their  former  success  in  shouting 
"the  wolf !  the  wolf !"  and  again  raised  the  cry  with  the  expecta- 
tion of  "railroading5'  the  measure  through.  This  must  have  been 
Governor  Smith's  belief  when  he  wrote  the  message  quoted  in  part 
below : 

.  .  .  You  urge  me  by  resolutions  to  make  appointments,  fit 
out  vessels,  as  government  vessels,  registering  them  as  such,  ap- 
pointing landsmen  to  command  a  naval  expedition  by  making 
representations  urgent  in  their  nature,  and  for  what.  I  see  no 
reason  but  to  carry  into  effect  by  the  hurried  and  improvident  acts 
of  my  department,  the  views  of  your  favorite  object  by  getting  my 
sanction  to  an  act  disorganizing  in  its  nature,  and  ruinous  in  its 
effects.  Instead  of  acting  as  becomes  the  counsellors  and  guardians 
of  a  free  people;  you  resolve  yourselves  into  low,  intriguing, 
caucussing  parties,  pass  resolutions  without  a  quorum,  predicated 
on  false  premises,  and  endeavor  to  ruin  the  country  by  counte- 
nancing, aiding  and  abetting  marauding  parties,3  and  if  you  could 
only  deceive  me  enough,  you  would  join  with  it  a  piratical  co- 
operation. You  have  acted  in  bad  faith,  and  seem  determined  by 

Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  282-84. 

2See  above,  p.  11. 

3This  expression  evidently  refers  to  the  Matamoras  expedition.     See  THE 
QUABTEELY,  V,  312  et  seq. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  35 

your  acts  to  destroy  the  very  institutions  which  you  are  pledged 
and  sworn  to  support.  .  .  .  Mexican  like,  you  are  ready  to 
sacrifice  your  country  at  the  shrine  of  plunder.  .  .  .  Base 
corruption  has  crept  into  your  councils,  men  who,  if  possible, 
would  deceive  their  God.  .  .  .  The  appointment  and  in- 
structions founded  on  the  resolutions  predicated  on  false  premises, 
shall  now  be  tested.  I  will  immediately  countermand  the  order 
made  out  in  such  haste,  and  as  you  say,  and  as  her  register  says, 
the  armed  vessel  Invincible  is  a  Government  vessel,  I  will  imme- 
diately order  a  suitable  officer  of  the  Government  to  go  and  take 
charge  of  her  in  the  name  of  the  Government,  and  hold  her  sub- 
ject to  my  order.  And  if  that  be  refused,  I  will  immediately  re- 
call her  register  by  proclamation  to  the  world.  I  would  further 
suggest  to  you  that  our  foreign  agents  have  been  commissioned 
and  specially  instructed  to  fill  out  our  navy,  and  procure  the  proper 
officers  and  crews;  and  unless  they  can  be  certainly  informed  of 
the  absolute  purchase  in  time,  to  prevent  their  purchase  of  a  sim- 
ilar one,  the  purchase  so  made  by  you,  shall  never  be  ratified  or 
become  binding  on  this  Government;  because  you  would  do  the 
Government  serious  injury  by  meddling  with  matters  which  you 
have  put  out  of  your  power  by  special  appointment.1 

The  governor  closed  his  message  by  declaring  the  Council  ad- 
journed until  March  1,  and  said  that  until  then  he  would  contrive 
to  discharge  his  duties  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy. 

This  message,  naturally,  created  a  sensation.  The  Council  re- 
ferred it  to  a  committee  which  on  the  llth  reported  resolutions 
deposing  the  governor  and  appointing  Lieutenant-Governor  James 
W.  Eobinson  to  take  his  place.  The  resolutions  were  adopted  and 
an  address  to  the  people  was  issued  by  the  Council  presenting  its 
side  of  the  quarrel,  but  we  will  leave  the  matter  here  and  resume 
the  history  of  the  Invincible.2 

Lieutenant-Governor  Robinson,  in  his  message  to  the  Council, 
January  14,  1836,  said,  "As  a  necessary  and  important  measure 
that  stands  intimately  connected  with  the  defense  of  the  country, 
and  one  to  which  I  invite  your  attention,  is  the  creation  and  due 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  290-292. 
.,  294-302. 


36  Naval  Vessels  Bought  and  Equipped. 

organization  of  a  corps  of  marines,  and  as  you  have  purchased 
two  vessels  for  the  public  service,  and  shortly  expect  two  more,  to 
be  purchased  by  your  agents  abroad,  it  would  be  very  desirable  to 
have  that  corps  organized,  and  ready  for  service,  with  as  little 
delay  as  possible."1  On  February  3,  Governor  Smith,  who  never 
acknowledged  being  deposed,  issued  to  Thomas  E.  Jackson  a  war- 
rant to  demand  certain  papers  from  the  Council,  among  them  one 
showing  "the  terms  on  which  the  armed  vessel  Invincible  has  been 
tendered  and  accepted  by  the  Government."2  This  is  the  last  ut- 
terance of  Governor  Smith  or  the  General  Council  relative  to  the 
Invincible  and  the  navy. 

On  March  1  the  General  Convention  superseded  the  General 
Council  and  brought  order  out  of  chaos.  After  the  declaration  of 
Texan  independence,  on  March  2,  1836,  the  Convention  turned  to 
the  formation  of  a  constitution,  and  on  the  9th  a  draft  was  re- 
ported which  touched  the  subject  of  the  navy  as  follows :  Congress 
was  empowered  to  "grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  make 
rules  concerning  captures  on  land  and  water,"  to  "provide  and 
maintain  a  navy,  to  raise  and  support  armies,  and  to  make  rules 
for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces;" 
the  president  was  declared  to  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army 
and  navy;  and  judges  of  the  supreme  and  inferior  courts  were 
given  exclusive  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction.3 

Thursday,  March  10,  Mr.  Carson  stated  "that  he  had  received 
information  of  the  arrival  of  the  Brutus  and  Invincible,  at  the 
mouth  of  the  river  Brazos,  destined  for  the  service  of  the  Republic 
of  Texas ;  and  that  it  was  important  to  commission  those  vessels ; 
he  would,  therefore,  move  that  a  select  committee  on  naval  affairs 
be  raised,  to  inquire  into  and  report  in  relation  thereto.  This  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  president  appointed  Messrs. 
Potter,  Everett,  and  Fisher  of  Matagorda."4  On  Sunday  the  13th, 
the  chairman  appointed  Messrs.  Carson  and  Fisher,  of  Mata- 
gorda, a  committee  "to  forward  commissions,  etc.,  to  our  naval 

^Proceedings  of  the  General  Council,  325. 
*Ibid.,  351-52. 

'Garnmel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  862,  863,  865. 
*lUd.,  I,  881. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  37 

commanders  •"  and  the  same  day  Mr.  Carson  introduced  a  resolu- 
tion "That  a  standing  committee  of  five  on  naval  affairs  be  ap- 
pointed to  draw  up  and  forward  all  necessary  instructions  and 
orders  for  the  government  of  the  officers  of  our  navy."  This  was 
adopted;  and  the  president  appointed  Messrs.  S.  Ehoads  Fisher, 
Hamilton,  Zavala,  Gazley,  and  Carson.  The  next  day  Mr.  Carson 
resigned  from  the  committee  and  was  replaced  by  Mr.  Waller.  At 
the  same  time  the  chairman,  Fisher,  reported  that  they  had  ap- 
pointed and  commissioned  the  following  persons  officers  in  the  naval 
service  of  Texas,  to-wit  :  "George  Wheelright,  Captain  to  schooner 
Liberty;  Charles  Hawkins,  Captain  to  schooner  Independence  [;] 
Jerimiah  Brown,  captain  to  schooner  Invincible;  William  A. 
Hurd,  Captain  to  schooner  Brutus;  Arthur  Robertson,  Captain  of 
marines."  The  report  stated  also  that  the  committee  had  for- 
warded letters  of  instructions  to  said  officers.1  As  this  is  our  in- 
troduction to  the  two  vessels  Brutus  and  Independence,  and  as 
nothing  further  is  to  be  found  in  the  government  proceedings  con- 
cerning their  purchase,  we  must  seek  elsewhere  for  the  informa- 
tion, as  well  as  for  additional  matter  relative  to  the  Invincible. 

Besides  the  Liberty,  Independence,  and  Brutus,  the  records  of 
the  period  mention  two  other  vessels  in  the  government  service. 
One  of  these,  the  Cayuga,  was  a  small  steamboat,  commanded  by 
Captain  William  P.  Harris,  and  carrying  two  light  guns.  Appar- 
ently it  did  not  belong  to  the  government,  but  was  impressed  by 
President  Burnet  and  ordered  to  the  defence  of  Galveston  Island, 
April  28,  1836.  2  After  this  emergency  no  more  is  heard  of  it. 
The  other  was  the  Correo.  This  was  a  Mexican  vessel  captured 
by  the  Brutus,  August  12,  1837.  She  was  apparently  attached  to 
the  navy  during  1837-1838,  and  in  the  State  Library  there  is  a 
list  of  her  officers,  but  I  have  been  unable  to  find  that  she  per- 
formed any  definite  service  for  the  country. 

The  Invincible  was  purchased  in  Baltimore  by  McKinney  and 


,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  890,  891,  892. 
2Texas  Almanac,  1869,  p.  58.  Those  interested  in  studying  conditions 
in  Galveston  at  this  period  will  find  much  valuable  material  in  the 
archives  of  the  Texas  Historical  Society  of  Galveston.  The  collection  con- 
tains several  hundred  original  letters  of  James  Morgan  and  President 
Burnet.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the  secretary,  Mr.  E.  G.  Littlejohn,  I 
was  permitted  to  examine  them. 


38  Naval  Vessels  Bought  and  Equipped. 

Williams  for  $12,613.02,  and  they  charged  the  government  of 
Texas  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent  commission.1  Besides  this, 
General  Thomas  J.  Green  paid  out  of  his  private  funds  a  consid- 
erable sum  to  fit  her  out,  and  William  Bryan  and  Edward  Hall, 
respectively  general  agent  and  purchasing  agent  for  Texas  in  New 
Orleans,  paid  out  $5,626.68  for  the  same  purpose;  making  the 
total  cost  of  the  Invincible  nearly  $20,000.2  At  this  time  Thomas 
F.  McKinney  held  a  commission  as  her  commander;  but  it  was 
merely  a  nominal  command,  for  he  made  no  cruise.  As  already 
stated,  the  Invincible  was  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- five  tons 
burthen,  built  in  Baltimore,  and  originally  intended  for  the  African 
slave  trade.  She  was  a  very  fast  sailer,  slight  in  her  construc- 
tion, "clipper  built,"  drawing  about  twelve  feet  of  water,  and 
originally  calculated  to  sustain  a  battery.  She  carried  two  medium 
eighteens  on  pivots  amidship,  with  two  nines  and  four  six- 
pounders  in  the  waist,  and  was  intended  to  have  a  crew  of 
seventy.  The  Liberty,  though  smaller,  being  of  some  sixty 
tons  burthen,  was  of  stouter  construction,  carried  four  guns  of 
small  caliber,  and  was  an  ordinary  sailer.  The  Brutus,  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  tons  burthen,  was  a  slow  sailer,  and 
carried  eight  guns.  The  Independence  was  of  about  the  same 
description  as  the  Brutus.  It  was  fitted  out  by  General  Green 
in  New  Orleans,  largely  from  his  private  funds,  at  the  same 
time  that  he  helped  to  equip  the  Invincible.  The  Brutus  had  been 
intended  for  the  Texan  service  as  early  as  December,  but  her  de- 
parture was  delayed  by  the  petition  of  twenty-eight  underwriters 
of  New  Orleans  to  United  States  District  Attorney  Carleton,  claim- 
ing that  she  was  being  "armed  with  six  cannon,  and  one  large  one 
on  a  pivot  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  Mexican  vessels,  which, 
with  their  cargoes  are  principally  insured  by  the  underwriters  of 
this  city."  Carleton  replied  deploring  the  fact  that  they  did  not 
furnish  him  with  affidavits  and  the  names  of  witnesses  in  order 
that  he  might  have  something  more  substantial  than  rumors  upon 
which  to  base  legal  proceedings,  and  promising  to  enforce  the  law 

1McKinney,  To  All  who  may  have  Seen  and  Read,  etc.  (pamphlet,  Co- 
lumbia, 1836),  p.  10. 

2A  Vindication  of  the  Conduct  of  the  Agency  of  Texas,  in  New  Orleans 
(pamphlet,  1836),  pp.  12-18. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  39 

when  provided  with  the  necessary  evidence  that  a  breach  of  it  was 
contemplated.1  After  the  Brutus  had  been  offered  to  the  Texan 
Government  she  was  detained  in  New  Orleans  a  while;  but  some 
time  between  January  23  and  February  15,  1836,  she  arrived  at 
Matagorda.  This  appears  from  a  report  made  by  the  advisory 
committee  of  the  Council  to  Acting  Governor  J.  W.  Bobinson,  on 
February  15,  1836.2  The  Independence  was  fitted  out  by  the  New 
Orleans  agents  at  the  same  time  as  the  Invincible,  Brutus,  and 
Liberty.  Her  cost  was  $5000  for  the  vessel,  and  some  $5000  for 
outfitting.3 

Having  given  as  complete  a  history  of  the  purchase  and  equip- 
ment of  these  vessels  as  our  material  permits,  we  will  now 
follow  each  vessel  in  her  various  cruises,  and  note  such  events  as 
are  worthy  of  a  place  in  a  history  of  the  navy  of  Texas.  To  the 
Liberty,  which  was  the  first  vessel  bought  for  the  government, 
and  whose  career  was  the  shortest  and  in  its  inglorious  ending  the 
saddest  of  all  the  fleet,  will  be  devoted  the  following  chapter. 

V.      THE  LIBERTY. 

While,  as  noted  in  the  last  chapter,  instructions  were  being  car- 
ried to  Captain  George  Wheelwright,  the  newly  appointed  com- 
mander of  the  Liberty,  Captain  William  S.  Brown,  intent  upon  a 
capture,  was  cruising  on  the  high  seas  with  the  Liberty,  seeking 
Mexican  vessels.  On  March  3,  1836,  he  fell  in  with  the  Pelicano, 
a  trading  schooner,  commanded  by  Captain  Perez.1  The  Pelicano 
was  cleared  from  the  port  of  New  Orleans  on  February  25,  1836, 
by  James  W:  Zachari,  with  a  cargo  purporting  to  consist  of  550 
barrels  of  flour;  but  in  each  barrel  after  the  capture  it  was  found 
that  there  were  concealed  three  kegs  of  gunpowder  intended  for 
the  Mexican  army.  The  Pelicano  was  a  Baltimore  built  vessel  of 
the  first  class,  carrying  three  large  brass  pieces,  and  having  on 
board,  besides  her  crew,  twenty  soldiers,  double  armed  with  mus- 
kets.5 As  the  Liberty  carried  but  four  small  guns,  she  was  really 

*House  Exec.  Docs.,  25  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  No.  74,  pp.  12-13. 

Tapers  of  the  General  Council,  file  No.  433. 

*A  Vindication  of  the  Conduct  of  the  Agency  of  Texas,  in  New  Orleans, 
p.  5.  Pamphlet,  p.  5,  Dienst,  Col.  Doc.,  Vol.  II,  16. 

Commercial  Advertiser,  New  Orleans,  April  25,  1836;  undated  clipping 
from  the  New  Orleans  True  American,  Austin  Papers. 

bHouse  Journal,  3d  Tex.  Cong.,  114. 


40  The  Liberty. 

venturesome  to  attempt  the  capture,  especially  as  the  fight  took 
place  within  point  blank  range  of  the  guns  of  the  port  of  Sisal. 
Three  of  the  Liberty's  men,  led  by  James  O'Connor,1  boarded  the 
Pelicano.  Before  others  could  go  to  their  assistance  they  killed 
seven  marines,  and  caused  several  others  to  jump  overboard,  and 
the  remainder  to  seek  refuge  beneath  the  hatches.  The  prize  was 
manned  with  a  crew  and  carried  to  Matagorda  Bay,  where  she  was 
wrecked  in  attempting  to  cross  the  bar.2  The  cargo,  however, 
was  saved.  In  landing,  some  of  the  barrels  were  stove  in,  and  it 
was  then  that  they  were,  upon  examination,  found  to  contain 
powder.3 

It  seems  that  Zachari  and  Company  denied  that  the  powder  was 
on  board  the  Pelicano.  When  this  denial  came  to  the  knowledge 
of  Captain  Brown,  he  addressed  the  following  letter  to  John  Gib- 
son, editor  of  the  True  American,  a  paper  friendly  to  Texas: 

GALVESTON  BAY,  ,May  8,  1836. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  True  American. 

SIR — By  Capt.  Appleton,  I  am  informed  that  J.  W.  Zacherie 
denied  that  there  was  any  Powder  on  board  schooner  Pelicano.  I 
do  assure  you  that  there  was  280  kegs — whether  he  knew  it  or  not, 
I  am  not  able  to  say.  In  addition  to  the  above  quantity,  there 
were  a  number  stowed  in  barrels  of  apples,  potatoes,  etc.  I  have 
found  a  number  of  letters  on  the  Prize  which  proved  the  above  fact. 
I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  state  these  facts  in  regard  to  the  Powder. 
There  was  no  mention  made  of  it  on  the  manifest. 

My  situation  requires  that  I  should  keep  a  constant  lookout, 
and  when  I  see  the  Mexican  flag  flying,  I  shall  either  take  it  or 
be  taken.  I  can  not  fly  from  a  Mexican,  and  will  not. 

Eespectfully  yours, 

W.  S.  BROWN, 
Commander  Schooner  Liberty.    (Texian.) 

In  a  proclamation  of  March  31,  1836,  General  Houston  refers 
to  the  capture  of  the  Pelicano  as  follows :  "Captain  Brown,  with 
one  of  our  vessels,  has  taken  a  Mexican  vessel  with  420  barrels 
of  flour,  300  kegs  of  powder  and  other  supplies  for  the  army."4 

Archives  of  Texas,  file  2424. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  August  18,  1838,  Austin  Papers. 
3Xew  Orleans  Commercial  Advertiser,  April  25,  1836,  Austin  Papers. 
'Proclamation   to   the    people   of   the   east   of   Brazos,   March    31,    1836. 
Copy  in  an  unidentified  newspaper  clipping. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  41 

From  the  date  of  Captain  Brown's  letter  above,  it  is  evident 
that  he  was  in  Galveston  Bay  May  8,  1836.  Whether  he  relin- 
quished the  command  of  the  Liberty  at  this  time  to  George  Wheel- 
wright, who  had  been  commissioned  on  March  12,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence to  show;  but  from  a  short  sketch  of  Brown,  which  after- 
wards appeared  in  the  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,1  he  seems 
at  about  this  time  to  have  committed  some  act  which  caused  Com- 
modore Hawkins  to  order  his  confinement  in  irons,  and  for  this 
he  resigned.  In  the  summer  of  1836  President  Burnet  gave  him 
another  commission,  with  the  express  understanding  that  he  was 
not  again  to  be  subject  to  the  order  of  Commodore  Hawkins.  He 
went  to  New  Orleans  to  get  a  boat  and  there  died.2 

It  is  very  probable  that  in  May  or  June,  1836,  Captain  Wheel- 
right  took  command  of  the  Liberty,  but  her  next  cruise  to  New 
Orleans  was  her  last.  She  accompanied  as  a  convoy  the  schooner 
Flora  with  the  wounded  General  Sam  Houston  on  board,  and 
arrived  at  New  Orleans  May  22,  1836.3  She  was  here  detained 
on  account  of  repairs,  and  in  July  was  sold  to  pay  the  cost  of 
them.4  In  the  legislative  halls  of  Texas  we  hear  an  echo  of  the 
Liberty  in  after  years  in  the  form  of  a  petition  from  the  captors 
of  the  schooner  Pelicano  for  their  share  of  the  prize.  The  peti- 
tion was  favorably  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  whose 
report  recites,  among  other  things,  that  the  district  court  of  Bra- 
zoria  county,  which  by  law  was  invested  with  admiralty  jurisdic- 
tion, had  duly  condemned  the  Pelicano  and  her  cargo  as  lawful 
prize  ;  that  the  value  of  the  cargo  of  flour  was  $7584.05  ;  and  that 
half  of  that  amount  was  due  the  captors.5  The  committee,  there- 
fore, recommended  a  joint  resolution  for  the  payment  of  their 
just  share  to  the  officers,  crew,  and  marines  of  the  Liberty.  Jj&nes 
O'Connor,  the  first  man  to  board  the  Pelicano,  was  to  receive  an 
extra  share.6 

This  closes  the  history  of  the  Liberty,  whose  career,  while  brief, 


18,  1838. 

2Captain  William  Brown  was  a  younger  brother  of  Jeremiah  Brown, 
who  was  appointed  captain  of  the  Invincible. 

"New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  May  23,   1836. 

*Henry  W.  Morfit,  Report,  Velasco,  Texas,  August  13,  1836;  in  Senate 
Decs.,  24th  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.  (Serial  No.  297),  Doc.  20,  p.  5. 

*House  Journal,  3d  Tex.  Cong.,  114. 

"Archives  of  Texas,  file  No.  2424. 


42  The  Invincible. 

was  not  unworthy  of  her  name,  save  in  her  ending,  which,  if  a 
reflection  at  all,  is  rather  on  her  government  than  on  herself. 

VI.      THE  INVINCIBLE. 

In  Chapter  IV  the  Invincible  was  left  at  the  point  where,  on 
March  12,  1836,  Captain  Jeremiah  Brown  was  appointed  by  the 
General  Consultation  to  her  command.1  With  his  commission  he 
also  received  orders  to  cruise  along  the  coast  and  engage  or  drive 
off  the  Mexican  war  vessel,  Montezuma.  This  vessel  had  so  far 
done  no  great  harm  to  the  Texan  interests,  but  since  she  was  first 
reported  off  the  Texan  coast  in  November,  1835,  shippers  had 
lived  in  constant  dread  of  her.  After  patroling  the  coast  for  some 
time,  Captain  Brown  received  a  hint  to  search  for  the  Montezuma 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Eio  Grande.  He  arrived  there  opportunely. 
An  embargo  had  been  laid  by  the  Mexican  government  on  all 
vessels  in  the  port  of  Matamoras  in  order  to  prevent  information 
reaching  the  Texans  of  an  expedition  which  was  being  prepared 
to  land  two  thousand  men  at  Copano  Bay.  The  Montezuma,  now 
rechristened  the  Bravo,,2  had  just  crossed  the  bar  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Eio  Grande,  which  is  some  thirty-five  miles  from  Matamoras,  and 
had  lost  her  rudder.  On  the  third  of  April,  at  ten  o'clock  a.  m.,  while 
she  was  waiting  to  refit  inside,  the  Invincible  came  in  sight  from 
the  north.  At  12  o'clock  she  came  opposite,  and  Lieutenant  Wil- 
liam H.  Leving,  in  a  small  boat,  went  on  board  the  Bravo.  The 
Bravo,,  becoming  suspicious,  slipped  her  cable  and  endeavored  to 
retreat  with  Lieutenant  Leving  on  board.  A  sharp  engagement 

1In  the  course  of  her  career  the  following  officers  served  for  varying 
terms  on  the  Invincible:  Captains  Jeremiah  Brown  and  Henry  L 
Thompson;  Lieutenants  F.  Johnson,  William  H.  Leving,  P.  W.  Hum- 
phreys,    Newcomb,  James  Perry,  Harrie  Hornsby,  Randolph 

Lee,  Logan,  James  Mellus,  and  James  Sever;  Surgeons  0.  P. 

Kelton  and  Dunn;  Purser  F.  T.  Wells;  Sailing  Masters  Daniel  Lloyd 

and  Abbott;  Midshipmen  Alf.  A.  Wate  and  Robert  Foster;  Boatswain 

Smith;  Gunner  Fred  Franson;  Captain  of  Marines  F.  M.  Gibson;  Lieu- 
tenants of  Marines  F.  Ward  and  — Brooks.  This  list,  which  is 

compiled  from  Tennison's  Journal,  the  New  Orleans  newspapers,  and  The 
Texas  Almanac,  1860-65,  is  as  complete  as  I  can  make  it. 

Yoakum,  II,  124,  says  that  L.  Brown  commanded  the  Invincible;  there 
iwas  no  Captain  L.  Brown,  and  Captain  W.  S.  Brown  commanded  the 
Liberty.  The  Texas  Almanac,  1860,  p.  58,  says  that  Captain  I.  B.  Brown 
commanded  the  Invincible;  this  also  is  an  error. 

2The  Matamoras  correspondents  of  the  New  Orleans  papers  call  the 
vessel  the  Bravo,  but  explain  that  it  was  formerly  the  Montezuma. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  43 

then  took  place.  The  Bravo  could  not  be  steered,  and  ran  aground 
near  the  north  beach,  where  she  was  almost  completely  wrecked 
by  a  broadside  from  the  Invincible.  The  crew  reached  the  shore 
in  safety,  carrying  with  them  Lieutenant  Leving.  The  Invincible 
sustained  no  damage,  but  Lieutenant  Leving  was  shot  as  a  pirate 
on  April  14,  1836. 

While  the  action  was  going  on  between  the  Invincible  and  the 
Bravo,  at  two  p.  m.  the  Pocket  came  in  sight.  This  vessel  was 
from  Boston,  commanded  by  Elijah  Howes,  who  sailed  from  New 
Orleans  on  the  28th  day  of  March,  laden  with  a  cargo,  shipped  by 
Lizardi  and  Company  of  that  city,  generally  understood  to  be 
Mexican  agents.  Captain  Brown  captured  the  Pocket  and  sailed 
into  Galveston,  where  it  was  detained.  Captain  Howes  and  some 
of  his  crew  proceeded  to  New  Orleans,  where  he  filed  with  the 
United  States  district  attorney  a  protest  against  the  capture.  This 
reads  as  follows  i1 

.  .  .  at  half  past  two  o'clock  P.  M.  saw  two  sails  off  the 
Brassos,  St.  Jago,  which  fired  several  guns  each;  ...  in  a 
short  time  the  schooner  which  carried  the  Mexican  flag  bore  away 
and  stood  for  the  shore,  and  the  other  vessel  tacked  ship  and  stood 
for  his  brig,  she  being  about  three  or  four  miles  distant ;  .  .  .  they 
kept  this  course  and  said  vessel  run  a  short  distance  to  the  wind- 
ward and  spoke  them.  .  .  .  The  captain  answered  he  was  from 
New  Orleans,  and  bound  for  Matamoras.  The  schooner  that 
made  these  inquiries,  proved  to  be  the  Texian  armed  vessel  In- 
vincible, Brown,  commander,  who  ran  a  short  distance  past  them, 
and  then  tacked  ship  and  ran  close  to  the  windward  of  them. 
That  said  schooner  then  sent  her  boat  on  board  the  brig,  with 
orders  to  Captain  Howes,  to  proceed  on  board  the  Invincible  with 
his  papers,  which  was  accordingly  obeyed;  .  .  .  Abbott,  sail- 
ing master  of  said  vessel, — with  one  officer  and  several  armed  men 
took  charge  of  the  brig,  .  .  .  [and]  the  Texian  flag  of  1824 
was  hoisted  in  its  place  at  the  main  peak  of  the  Invincible.  .  .  . 

The  protest  then  recites  that,  after  remaining  at  this  point  for 
two  days,  the  two  vessels  sailed  together,  reaching  the  mouth  of 
the  Brazos  after  a  voyage  of  forty-eight  hours.  On  arriving  at 
Galveston  the  next  day,  they  were  detained  there  until  April  24, 
1836,  when  Captain  Howes  and  his  crew  received  permission  to 
sail  for  New  Orleans.  They  were  informed  by  the  Texan  authori- 
ties that  the  Pocket  would  be  retained  as  a  guard  ship.  Upon  this 

*An  unidentified  newspaper  clipping. 


44  The  Invincible. 

Captain  Howes  told  them  that  he  would  abandon  her.  This  he 
did,  losing  cargo,  freight,  and  passage  money.  He  arrived  at  New 
Orleans  on  the  tenth  day  of  May,  and  noted  this  protest: 

And  thereupon  these  said  officers,  and  especially  the  said  master, 
did  protest,  and  with  them  I,  notary,  at  their  request,  do  most  sol- 
emnly and  publicly  protest: 

First,  against  the  winds  and  the  waves  and  the  danger  of  the 
sea  generally. 

Second,  against  the  illegal  capture  and  detention  of  the  afore- 
said vessel  and  cargo. 

The  Invincible  was  denounced  as  a  pirate  to  Commodore  Dallas, 
who  was  commanding  a  United  States  squadron  at  Pensacola,  and 
he  ordered  the  sloop  Warren  to  capture  her,  which  was  done  on 
May  I.1  The  Invincible  was  carried  into  New  Orleans,  and  forty- 
six  of  the  crew  were  imprisoned.  Captain  Brown  was  not  on  the 
vessel  when  it  was  captured.  On  May  4,  the  prisoners  were  called 
for  trial;  but  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  did  not  appear,  and 
the  case  was  postponed  until  the  6th,2  when  it  was  taken  up  be- 
fore Judge  Rawle  of  the  United  States  district  court.3  The  law- 
yers for  the  defense  were  Messrs.  Seth  Barton,  Randall  Hunt,  and 
0.  P.  Jackson.  But  four  witnesses  were  examined.  Three  officers 
of  the  Warren  testified  that  they  had  taken  the  Invincible  on 
charges  preferred  against  her  by  an  insurance  company  of  New 
Orleans  that  she  had  detained  an  American  vessel.  The  court 
here  adjourned  until  the  following  day,  when  the  case  came  up 
again.  No  affidavits  appearing,  and  no  evidence  being  introduced 
to  warrant  a  commitment  for  trial,  the  prisoners  were  discharged. 
The  Commercial  Bulletin*  reviewed  the  case  as  follows : 

^  .  .  We  have  never  seen  a  finer  collection  of  robust,  and 
honest  faced  tars,  than  the  prisoners,  and  in  a  good  cause,  we 
should  ever  hope,  that  they  might  prove  invincible. 

The  defense  of  the  Texans  was  that  the  vessel  was  captured 
in  Mexican  waters  for  contravening  the  laws  of  the  Republic,  i.  e. 
Texas,  by  having  on  board  contraband  goods,  powder,  etc.,  and 
for  contravening  the  laws  of  Nations  by  having  on  board  material 
of  war  for  the  use  and  advantage  of  Santa  Anna,  who  was  im- 
patiently awaiting  the  same.  .  .  .  They  also  said  the  vessel 

lNew  Orleans  Bee,  May  3,  1836. 

2New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  May  5,  1836. 

3IUd.,  May  7,  1836. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  45 

was  detained  for  examination,  by  reason  of  her  having  two  of 
Santa  Anna's  spies  on  board,  with  plans  and  charts  to  aid  in  the 
downfall  of  Texas,  which  was  proven.  The  captain  not  being 
able  to  read  Spanish  in  which  the  invoices  and  correspondence 
were  written  carried  her  before  the  admiralty  court  of  Texas,  where 
the  truth  came  out.  The  court  finding  the  Pocket  laden  with 
contraband  goods,  purchased  with  Santa  Anna's  money  by  his 
agent  Lizardi,  condemned  them  as  a  lawful  prize,  paid  the  cap- 
tain his  freight,  nine  hundred  dollars,  and  later  dismissed  the 
vessel  as  neutral. 

Captain  Brown  now  came  forward  and  was  arrested,  but  was 
immediately  released  and  thus  escaped  the  preliminary  jail  term 
which  the  crew  suffered.  The  episode  closed  with  a  letter  of 
thanks  from  the  Texans  in  New  Orleans  to  the  attorneys  for  the 
defense  for  their  efficient  service,  part  of  which  is  as  follows:1 

NEW  ORLEANS,  May  7,  1836. 
To  Seth  Barton,  Randal  Hunt  and  0.  P.  Jackson,  Esqrs. 

Gentlemen:  We  the  undersigned  citizens  of  Texas,  embrace 
this  opportunity  of  expressing  to  you  our  most  heartfelt  gratitude, 
in  behalf  of  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Texian  man  of  war 
schooner  Invincible,  that  of  our  country  and  ourselves,  for  the  very 
able,  lucid  and  eloquent  manner,  in  which  you  defended  the  noble 
and  grateful  crew,  from  the  false  imputation  of  piracy,  brought 
against  them  by  the  secret  Mexican  influence  of  this  city.  .  .  . 
If  in  some  future  day  you  should  visit  our  beautiful  land,  which 
is  destined  to  be  one  of  the  most  prosperous  and  happy  on  earth, 
your  reflection  must  be  pleasing  indeed,  to  know  you  were  among 
the  number  who  voluntarily  contributed  to  our  righteous  cause. 

THOS.  J.  GREEN, 
Brig'r  Gen.  of  the  Army  of  Texas. 
A  C  ALLEN 

SAMUEL  M.  WILLIAMS      9 
S  RHOADS  FISHER 
JAMES  POWER 
EDWARD  CONRAD 
HENRY  AUSTIN 
EDWARD  HALL 
SAMUEL  ELLIS 
Ro.  WILSON 
T.  G.  WESTREN 
D.  C.  BARRITT 
WM.  BRYAN,  Texas  Agent. 

*New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  May  10,  1836. 


46  The  Invincible. 

All  claims  against  Texas  on  account  of  the  Pocket  were  finally 
settled  by  a  convention  between  the  Texan  government  and  that 
of  the  United  States,  the  ratifications  of  which  were  exchanged 
July  6,  1838.  The  amount  agreed  upon  was  $11,750,  which  was 
paid,  together  with  accrued  interest,  July  6,  1849.  The  whole 
amount  was  $12,455.1 

After  her  release  the  Invincible  was  used  for  coast  defense.  In 
June,  1836,  she  figured  in  another  exciting  incident.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  treaty  of  Velasco,  concluded  May  14,  1836,  the 
Texan  government  determined  to  transport  President  Santa  Anna 
to  Yera  Cruz,  and  for  that  purpose  he  had  already  embarked  on 
the  Invincible,  when,  on  the  5th  of  June,  General  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son Green  arrived  with  volunteers  from  New  Orleans  in  the  Oaean, 
and  forbade  the  Invincible  to  sail.2  Whether  or  not  it  was  for 
the  good  of  Texas  that  Santa  Anna  was  detained  and  whether  or 
not  the  government  could  have  prevented  the  detention,  will  al- 
ways remain  debatable  questions;  but  it  is  in  any  case  a  fact  that 
Texas  violated  a  treaty  in  permitting  it. 

The  Mexican  navy  at  this  time  was  ascertained  to  be  lying  in 
port,  wanting  men,  arms  and  other  equipment;3  so  the  Invincible 
remained  riding  at  anchor  off  the  bar  of  Velasco,  until  July  4, 
when,  as  already  related,  she  went  to  the  relief  of  the  schooner 
Brutus^  which  was  blockaded  at  Matagorda  by  the  Vencedor  del 
Alamo.  This  vessel  had  been  dispatched  from  Vera  Cruz  to  pro- 
tect the  Mexican  schooners,  Comanche,  Fanny  Butler,  and  Watch- 
man, which  were  laden  with  provisions  for  the  Mexican  troops.5 
Finding  that  the  Texans  had  already  intercepted  these  vessels,  and 
appropriated  their  cargoes,  the  Vencedor  del  Alamo  very  wisely 
r^Lurned  to  Vera  Cruz.6  There  the  Invincible  finally  found  and 

*For  a  more  detailed  account  of  the  case  of  the  Pocket,  see  the  article 
by  Mr.  Neu  in  this  number  of  THE  QUARTERLY. — EDITOR  QUARTERLY. 

2See  Williams,  Life  of  Sam  Houston,  218-221. 

3New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  June  14  and  July  13,  1836. 

4See  THE  QUARTERLY,  XII,  195.  In  the  navy  manuscripts  of  the  Texas 
State  Library  are  several  letters  dated  Velasco,  May  30,  1836,  disclosing 
a  serious  misunderstanding  between  Commodore  Hawkins  and  Captain 
J.  Brown.  Hawkins  wished  to  remove  Brown  from  the  command  of  the 
Invincible,  but  he  failed  to  accomplish  his  object. 

"New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  July  18,  1836. 

6The  story  of  the  capture  of  these  vessels  is  extremely  interesting. 
On  the  29th  of  May  ,  1836,  General  Rusk  ordered  Major  Isaac  Burton, 
commanding  a  company  of  mounted  rangers  to  scour  the  coast  from  the 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  47 

challenged  her  to  battle,  which  was  declined  on  the  pretext  that 
the  crew  of  the  vessel  challenged  were,  for  want  of  pay,  not  in  a 
condition  to  fight.  Later  the  Invincible  fell  in  with  a  French 
vessel,  and  Captain  Brown  had  to  explain  that  he  was  not  a  pirate, 
but  was  sailing  under  the  flag  of  Texas.  The  captain  of  the 
Frenchman  was  greatly  surprised ;  for  he  had  never  heard  of  such 
a  country,  and  did  not  know  where  it  was ;  and  he  could  not  realize 
the  fact  of  the  creation  of  a  new  republic,  not  known  to  him.1 

The  Invincible  now  went  to  New  Orleans;  and  after  taking  on 
board  as  passengers  Branch  T.  Archer  and  William  EL  Wharton, 
she  left,  on  July  13,  1836,  for  Galveston.2  From  here  she  cruised 
to  Velasco,  and  about  August  43  was  ordered  by  President  D.  G. 
Burnet  to  New  York  for  much  needed  repairs.  She  reached  there 
in  September,  1836.  Unable  to  leave  for  want  of  funds,  she 
might  have  been  sold  to  meet  expenses,  but  Hon.  Samuel  Swart- 
wout  paid  her  liabilities  and  let  her  go.  She  escaped  arrest  for 
violation  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States  only  by  run- 
ning away  from  the  vessel  sent  in  pursuit  of  her.  On  -March  14, 
1837,  she  reached  Galveston  once  more. 

In  the  preceding  October  General  Sam  Houston  had  succeeded 
to  the  Presidency  of  Texas  under  the  permanent  government ;  and, 
in  making  his  nominations  to  the  Senate  for  commissions  in  the 
navy,  he  raised  the  list  of  officers  to  a  number  commensurate  with 
the  size  of  the  navy.  In  April,  by  orders  from  the  Navy  Depart- 

Guadalupe  to  Refugio.  The  company,  though  well  mounted  and  armed, 
consisted  of  but  twenty  men.  On  the  2nd  of  June  they  received  news 
of  a  suspicious  vessel  in  the  Bay  of  C6pano.  By  the  break  of  day  the 
next  morning  they  were  in  ambush  on  the  shore,  and  at  eight  o'clock, 
a  signal  was  made  for  the  vessel  to  send  its  boat  ashore.  Five  men  landjd 
from  the  boat,  and  were  promptly  made  prisoners.  It  was  then  manired 
by  sixteen  of  Burton's  rangers,  who  had  no  difficulty  in  seizing  the 
Watchman.  The  vessel  was  ordered  round  to  Velasco;  but  on  the  17th, 
while  it  was  still  detained  by  contrary  winds,  the  Comanche  and  Fanny 
Butler,  also  freighted  with  provisions  for  the  Mexican  army,  anchored  off 
the  bar.  The  captain  of  the  Watchman  was  made  to  decoy  the  com- 
manders of  these  vessels  on  board  his  own,  when  they  also  were  captured, 
and  all  three,  with  their  valuable  cargoes,  were  sent  into  the  port  of  Velasco 
and  condemned.  From  these  bold  achievements  Major  Burton  and  his 
rangers  obtained  the  popular  title  of  the  "Horse  Marines."  The  freight 
— worth  $25,000 — was  of  great  service  to  the  army. — Telegraph  and 
Texas  Register,  August  2,  1836,  and  Yoakum,  II,  160. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  August  16,  1836. 

^Louisiana  Advertiser,  July  14,  1836. 

3Texas  Almanac,  1860,  p.   163. 


48  The  Invincible. 

ment,  Commander  H.  L.  Thompson  assumed  the  command  of  the 
Invincible.  Accompanied  by  the  Brutus,  he  first  sailed  in  June 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi;  but,  failing  to  find  any  of  the 
enemy  there,  after  a  cruise  of  seven  or  eight  days  he  turned  to 
the  coast  of  Mexico.  On  board  with  him  was  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  S.  Ehoads  Fisher.  The  peculiar  conduct  of  Fisher  in 
abandoning  his  official  duties  at  Houston  to  join  in  this  cruise,  he 
sought  to  justify  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bartlett,  editor  of  the  New 
York  Albion,  dated  June  17,  1837,  of  which  the  essential  part  is 
in  the  following  excerpt:1 

It  is  ten  days  since  I  left  Houston  and  immediately  joined  our 
little  squadron,  then  lying  in  Galveston  Bay,  and  'after  convoying 
the  schooner  Texas,  ladened  with  Government  stores  to  Matagorda 
Bay,  up  helm  and  bare  away  for  Galveston,  to  receive  orders  from 
the  President;  we  shall  be  there  tomorrow,  and  shall  stretch  to 
the  southward  with  the  hope  of  falling  in  with  the  enemy.  I  am 
a  volunteer.  I  can  not  precisely  say  amateur,  but  I  have  thought 
for  some  time  upon  the  expediency  of  personally  taking  a  part 
with  the  Navy,  and  have  decided  it  was  right.  I  know,  you  gen- 
tlemen of  systematized  governments  will  smile  at  the  idea  of  the 
"Secretary  of  the  Navy"  turning  sailor,  and  may  be  inclined  to 
consider  it  better  adapted  to  the  adventure  seeking  disposition  of 
the  knight  of  the  rueful  countenance;  but  my  opinion  is  that  it 
will  inspire  great  confidence  in  the  men,  and  stimulate  our  Con- 
gress to  do  something  for  us;  for  it  appears  that  this  branch  of 
national  defense  has  never  been  popular  in  its  infancy  in  any 
country;  it  ever  has  been  compelled  to  fight  itself  into  notice  and 
government  patronage;  such  at  least  I  am  satisfied  is  our  case,  and 
I  think  that  my  present  step  is  precisely  such  as  will  suit  the 
meridian  of  the  views  of  our  Texas  population.  We  must  be  gov- 
erned and  actuated  by  such  course  as  may  best  suit  us;  we  are 
iKting  and  legislating  for  ourselves  'and  not  for  the  world,  and 
however  at  variance  our  system  of  policy  may  be  with  the  pre- 
conceived ideas  of  right  or  wrong  amongst  the  world  at  large,  I 
humbly  conceive  that  as  we  have  to  lie  in  the  bed,  we  have  the 
right  to  make  it.  Therefore,  it  is  that  however  quixotic  my  pres- 
ent step  may  appear,  and  indeed  for  the  United  States  or  Great 
Britain  would  be,  /  am  satisfied  it  is  right. 

In  the  course  of  this  cruise  several  pirogues  were  captured  at 
Mujeres  Island.  From  them  sails  and  provisions  were  ob- 
tained. In  one  was  found  a  cargo  of  log  wood,  which  the  cap- 

^ee  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  September  9,  1837. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  49 

taiii  of  the  pirogue  redeemed  for  $660  when  they  arrived  at 
Sisal.  This  place  was  cannonaded  by  the  Texans  for  three  hours, 
but  the  attempt  to  take  it  was  finally  abandoned.  The  sailors  and 
marines  made  repeated  landings  on  this  cruise  and  burned  to  the 
ground  eight  or  nine  towns.  On  one  occasion  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  Fisher  and  Captain  Boylan,  then  commanding  the  Brutus, 
landing  with  a  few  men  and  leaving  their  guns  with  their  boat, 
strolled  two  or  three  hundred  yards  from  the  shore,  when  they 
were  nearly  captured  by  a  small  body  of  Mexican  cavalry.  Secre- 
tary Fisher  used  a  pistol  which  he  chanced  to  have  with  him  and 
shot  one  of  the  Mexicans  from  his  horse.1  The  Mexican  fleet 
was  meanwhile  lying  at  Vera  Cruz  unmanned.  Close  to  the 
Alacranes  Island,  the  Eliza  Russell,  a  British  schooner  in  the 
Mexican  trade,  and  the  Abispa*  a  Mexican  vessel  having  on  board 
a  cargo  transferred  from  the  British  schooner  Little  Pen3  that  had 
been  wrecked  on  the  island,  were  added  to  the  list  of  prizes;  but 
the  Eliza  Russell  was  soon  released.  The  British  government  put 
in  claims  against  that  of  Texas  for  damages  on  behalf  of  the  mas- 
ter of  the  Eliza  Russell  and  the  owners  of  the  cargo  of  the  Little 
Pen  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  about  thirteen  thousand  dollars. 
The  Eliza  Russell  claim — about  four  thousand  dollars — was  finally 
paid,  but  that  of  the  Little  Pen  was  not.4 

Concerning  the  capture  of  the  Eliza  Russell,  President  Houston, 
in  his  message  of  November  21,  1837,  expressed  himself  as  follows  :5 

A  circumstance  [that]  occurred  during  the  last  cruise  which 
was  directed  by  the  executive,  demands  of  me  in  this  communica- 
tion to  notice  the  same  to  the  honorable  congress.  Orders  were 
issued  from  the  navy  department  by  direction  of  the  executive, 
to  the  commander  of  the  navy  that  all  neutral  flags  should  be 
respected,  unless  the  vessel  was  bound  to  an  enemy's  port,  and9 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  August  22,  1837,  quoting  the  Mafagorda 
Bulletin. 

'Historians  .  spell  this  name  differently.  Yoakum  (II,  213)  makes  it 
"Alispa";  the  Texas  Almanac,  1860  (p.  164),  "Obispo";  Brown  (II,  127), 
"Arispe";  and  Bancroft  (II,  283),  "Avispa."  Bancroft  explains  at  length 
that  Avispa  means  wasp  in  Spanish;  and  that  therefore,  "Avispa"  must  be 
correct.  I  use  the  variant  form  ('Abispa,)}  because  it  is  this  which  ap- 
pears in  the  documents  I  am  following. 

3This  is  the  spelling  invariably  used  by  the  British  charge,  Elliot. 

*For  further  details  relative  to  the  cases  of  the  EUza,  Russell  and  the 
Little  Pen,  see  THE  QUARTERLY,  IX,  5-7. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  November  25,  1837;  Crane,  Life  and 
Select  Literary  Remains  of  Sam  Houston,  291. 


50  The  Invincible. 

had  on  board  articles  contraband  of  war.  In  violation  of  these 
orders,  the  Eliza  Kussell,  an  English  brig  was  seized  and  sent  into 
port,  with  a  valuable  cargo  of  fine  goods,  but  containing  nothing 
contraband  of  war!  Upon  information  of  the  circumstances,  the 
executive  directed  her  immediate  release,  and  the  payment  of  dam- 
ages, so  far  as  he  deemed  it  within  his  competency.  The  subject 
will  be  presented  to  Congress  by  the  owner  of  the  vessel,  with  a 
minute  statement  of  all  the  facts.  The  circumstances  of  the  case 
were  immediately  communicated  to  our  commissioner  near  the 
court  of  St.  James,  and  the  executive  has  been  assured  that  the 
despatch  would  reach  England  by  the  time  of  his  arrival.  Other 
acts  connected  with  the  cruise  of  a  character  not  calculated  to 
elevate  us  in  the  scale  of  nations,  were  done  either  without  orders, 
or  in  direct  violation  of  those  which  had  been  issued  by  the  de- 
partment. 

By  "other  acts,"  President  Houston  probably  meant  S.  Ehoads 
Fisher's  absence  from  the  seat  of  government,  and  the  fact  that 
the  Invincivle  overstayed  the  term  of  her  sailing  orders  nearly  two 
months.  For  this,  and  the  illegal  detention  of  the  Eliza  Russell, 
Fisher  and  Captain  Thompson  of  the  Invincible  were  suspended 
by  the  President  from  their  duties  until  they  could  be  tried. 
Fisher's  trial  took  place  before  the  Senate,  and  resulted  in  a  reso- 
lution sustaining  the  president  in  his  suspension  of  the  secretary, 
and  asking  the  latter,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to  resign,  while 
declaring  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  not  found  guilty  of  any 
crime  or  dishonorable  conduct.1  The  department  of  the  navy  in- 
vestigated the  charges  against  Captain  Thompson;2  but  it  seems 
he  was  spared  an  earthly  trial,  for  on  November  1,  1837,  he  died. 
There  was  one  solitary  acknowledgment  of  his  brave  and  splendid 
services  for  Texas,  the  record  of  which  is  as  follows :  "As  a  mark 
Vrf  respect  to  the  memory  of  Captain  H.  L.  Thompson,  of  the 
Texian  Navy,  who  died  this  morning,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Wharton, 
the  Senate  adjourned  until  3  o'clock  P.  M."3  Captain  Thompson's 
experiences  could  hardly  have  failed  to  convince  him  of  the  truth 
in  the  old  adage  that  republics  are  ungrateful. 

On  August  26,  1837,  the  Invincible  and  the  Brutus,  with  the 
Abispa  in  tow,  entered  Galveston  harbor.  The  Brutus  entered  the 

^Senate  Journal,   2d  Tex.   Cong.,    1st  and   2nd  Sessions,   74-78,  passim; 
Senate   resolutions   adopted   November   28,    1837,   Archives   of  Texas,   805. 
2House  Journal,  2nd  T»x.  Cong.,  1st  and  2nd  Sessions,  170. 
'Senate  Journal,   2nd   Tex.    Cong.,   42. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  51 

harbor  with  the  Abi&pa;  but,  because  of  unfavorable  conditions, 
the  Invincible  remained  outside  till  morning,  when  she  was  at- 
tacked by  two  Mexican  armed  brigs,  the  Vencedor  del  Alamo  and 
the  Libertador.  In  coming  to  her  assistance  the  Brutus  ran  aground 
and  the  Invincible  continued  the  fight  alone  against  both  the 
Mexican  vessels.  Though  both  of  these  could  outsail  her,  they 
would  not  risk  an  attempt  to  board,  and  were  several  times  forced 
to  draw  away  from  close  quarters.  Finally,  toward  evening,  the 
Invincible  abandoned  the  struggle  and  undertook  to  enter  the  har- 
bor; but  in  the  attempt  she  also  ran  aground.  The  crew  were 
saved,  but  during  the  night  the  vessel  went  to  pieces.1 

On  May  23,  1838,  President  Houston  approved  a  joint  resolu- 
tion authorizing  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  pay  to  the  officers 
and  crew  of  the  Invincible  one-half  of  the  proceeds  of  the  prizes 
made  by  said  vessel  in  her  last  cruise,  which  had  been  legally  con- 
demned.2 This  is  the  last  official  notice  relative  to  the  Invincible. 
Some  of  the  officers  and  crew  we  shall  find  aboard  other  Texan 
vessels  as  we  pursue  our  history.  The  Invincible  did  a  great 
service  for  Texas,  and  her  name  should  never  be  forgotten  by 
those  who  love  to  give  honor  where  honor  is  due. 

VII.      THE  BRUTUS. 

In  the  chapter  devoted  to  the  purchase  of  naval  vessels  a  sketch 
was  given  of  the  Brutus  —  her  armament,  cost,  and  the  officers  ap- 
pointed on  (March  12,  1836,  to  command  her.3  It  was  also  there 
mentioned  that  she  was  intended  for  the  Texan  service  as  early  as 


Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  September  2,  1837. 

'Gamin  el,   Laws  of  Texas,  I,   1495. 

3See  THE  QUARTERLY,  XII,  201-203.  At  various  times  the  following  offi- 
cers served  on  the  Brutus:  Captains  L.  C.  Harby,  William  A.  Hurd,  and 
James  D.  Boylan;  Lieutenants  L.  M.  Hitchcock,  -  Lacy,  John 
Damon,  -  Hoyt,  G.  W.  Estis,  J.  G.  Hurd,  Osky  Davis,  -- 
Mossat,  Libel  Hastings,  -  Dearing  and  -  Galligher;  Sur- 
geon A.  M.  Levy;  Purser  Norman  Hurd;  Boatswain  -  •  -  Brown. 
Henry  Riley  served  as  an  officer  in  some  capacity,  but  his  rank  is  un- 
known. Officers  of  marines  were  :  Captain  Arthur  Robertson  and  First 
Lieutenant  William  Francis. 

This  list  is  compiled  from  Tennison's  Journal,  the  New  Orleans  news- 
papers and  the  Texas  Almanac,  1860,  p.  165.  In  the  list  of  the  Texas 
Almanac,  I.  D.  Bolan  should  be  J.  D.  Boylan;  I.  G.  Hurd  should  be  J.  G. 
Hurd;  and  it  should  be  noted  that  Lieutenant  Mellus  did  not  serve  on 
the  Brutus.  Brown,  II,  127,  writes  "Boyland,"  and  this  is  the  spelling  of 
the  name  in  the  Naval  Papers  of  the  State  Library. 


52  The  Brutus. 

December,  1835.  She  was  in  the  port  of  Galveston,  when  the 
Invincible  arrived,  on  April  8,  1836,  with  her  prize,  the  Pocket. 
She  soon  left  Galveston,  and  after  a  short  cruise  stopped  at  New 
Orleans,  during  the  trial  of  the  crew  of  the  Invincible.  When  the 
trial  was  over,  Captains  Brown  and  Hurd  boasted  that,  from  that 
time  on,  they  would  warn  all  United  States  vessels  which  they 
encountered  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  against 
continuing  their  voyages;  and  that,  if  afterwards  these  vessels 
should  be  found  doing  so,  they  would  be  seized  and  condemned. 
As  the  Texas  navy  was  unable  to  blockade  the  various  Mexican 
ports  and  no  distinction  was  made  by  Brown  and  Hurd  between 
vessels  with  and  without  contraband  of  war,  this  was  an  idle  and 
useless  threat.  A.  J.  Dallas,  commanding  the  United  States  naval 
force  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  was  appealed  to  to  convoy  and  pro- 
tect American  shipping,1  and  he  assured  the  shippers  that  he 
would  do  so.  This  was  eminently  proper  at  the  time,  as  no 
blockade  of  Mexican  ports  was  then  in  force;  but  on  the  21st  of 
July,  1836,  President  Burnet  issued  a  proclamation2  from  Velasco, 
declaring  a  blockade  of  the  port  of  Matamoras,  and  ordering  a 
sufficient  number  of  war  vessels  to  the  mouth  of  the  Eio  Grande, 
and  the  Brazos  Santiago  to  enforce  the  blockade  strictly.  Not- 
withstanding this  effective  blockade,  which  it  was  important  for 
Texas  to  maintain  in  order  to  prevent  transports  laden  with  pro- 
visions reaching  Matamoras  from  New  Orleans,  and  transports 
loaded  with  troops  at  Matamoras  from  reaching  Texas,  Commo- 
dore Dallas,  on  August  9,  1836,  wrote  a  letter  from  Pensacola,3 
stating  that  he  would  despatch  a  war  vessel  to  the  mouth  of  the 
in  Mississippi  to  convoy  any  vessels  bound  to  Matamoras,  and  that 
he  would  raise  the  blockade.  This,  however,  was  an  actual  and 
legal,  not  a  paper,  blockade;  and  hence,  in  this  case  at  least,  Com- 
modore Dallas  was  in  the  wrong  and  merited  to  the  fullest  extent 
the  criticism  directed  against  him  by  the  Texans  and  the  New 
Orleans  press  for  his  arbitrary  interference  with  the  struggling 
Eepublic  of  Texas. 

On  May  20,  1836,  the  Brutus  left  New  Orleans  to  convoy  ves- 

*New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  May   11,   1836. 
^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  August  16,  1836. 

'The  substance  of  this  letter  is  quoted  in  the  Telegraph  and  Texas  Reg- 
ister, September  6,  1836,  from  the  New  Orleans  Bulletin,  August  13,  1836. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  53 

sels  to  Galveston.  From  Galveston  she  sailed  for  the  Mexican 
coast  and  soon  afterwards  was,  as  has  already  been  related,  block- 
aded in  the  mouth  of  the  Eio  Grande  by  the  Mexican  brig  of  war, 
Vencedor  'd\el  Alamv*  From  this  situation  she  was  relieved  in 
July,  and  soon  thereafter  was  very  effectually  assisting,  in  her 
turn,  in  the  blockade  of  Matamoras,  as  ordered  by  the  proclama- 
tion of  President  Burnet. 

The  following  item  relative  to  the  Brutus  appears  in  a  New 
Orleans  paper  the  following  month:2 

Extract  from  the  log-book  of  brig  St  John,  arrived  yesterday 
August  3d,  in  lat.  26  36,  long.  87  25,  was  boarded  by  the  first 
officer  of  the  Texian  armed  schr.  Brutus,  Captain  Hurd.  The  B. 
has  been  on  a  cruise  for  nearly  three  months,  was  in  want  of  pro- 
visions —  could  not  supply  her  with  any  article  except  sugar,  being 
short.  The  officer  told  Captain  Family,  of  the  St.  John,  that  the 
Brutus  had  a  few  days  before  taken  a  prize  and  sent  her  into 
Galveston  —  that  she  had  on  board  $40,000  in  specie,  and  a  valuable 
cargo  [?]3 

But  a  short  time  later,  when  the  president  wished  to  order  a 
descent  on  Matamoras  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  military  stores 
known  to  be  there,  he  learned  that  Captain  Hurd  had,  without 
orders,  sailed  for  New  York.  Kurd's  reason  for  this  has  never 
been  ascertained.4  While  in  the  port  of  New  York,  between  Sep- 
tember, 1836,  and  February,  1837,  the  Brutus  was  in  danger  of 
being  sold  to  defray  her  expenses;  but,  through  the  agency  of 
Samuel  Swartwout,  she  was  freed  from  debt  at  the  same  time  that 
he  liberated  the  Invincible*  In  March  she  sailed  for  Texas;  and 
on  the  15th  of  April,  1837,  she  again  came  to  anchor  in  a  Texas 
port,  but  without  provisions  and  with  the  larger  part  of  her  crev 
missing.'6 

The  Independence  having  been  recently  captured  by  the  Mexi- 
cans, and  the  officers  imprisoned,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, on  April  29,  1837,  passed  a  resolution  instructing  the 


QUARTERLY,  XII,   195. 
2The  New  Orleans  Bee,  August  10,  1836. 

3The  interrogation  mark  and  the  brackets  belong  to  the  original. 
4D.  G.  Burnet,  in  Texas  Almanac,   1861,  p.  45. 
5See  p.  257  above. 

"Proclamation    of   President    Houston,   May    5,    1837,   in    Telegraph   and 
Texas  Register,  May  9,  1837. 


54  The  Brutus. 

president  to  send  the  Brutus  and  the  Invincible  to  Brazos  San- 
tiago to  negotiate  an  exchange  of  prisoners.  On  May  31,  President 
Houston  vetoed  the  resolution  and  in  a  lengthy  message  pointed 
out  that  there  was  nothing  to  gain  and  much  to  lose  by  sending 
the  only  two  remaining  war  vessels  on  such  an  errand;  that  the 
prisoners  would,  on  the  approach  of  such  vessels,  very  likely  be 
carried  to  the  interior,  and  treated  more  harshly;  that  any  kind 
of  a  neutral  or  unarmed  vessel  would  be  better  employed  to  carry 
such  commissioners ;  and  that,  finally,  he  would  veto  the  resolution, 
if  for  no  other  reason,  because  he  considered  it  an  unwarranted 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  legislative  department  with  his  con- 
stitutional authority  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  navy.1 

In  June  the  Brutus  cruised  with  the  Invincible  along  the  Mexi- 
can coast,  with  the  secretary  of  the  navy  on  board,  as  has  been 
told  already.2 

In  a  letter  describing  this  cruise  to  the  secretary  of  the  navy,3 
Captain  Boylan  says  that  on  July  22  the  two  vessels  captured  the 
Mexican  schooner  U'nion,  and  a  few  days  later  the  Adventure  and 
the  Telegraph — the  former  of  which  was  burned,  though  the  latter 
was  sent  into  port  for  adjudication.  On  August  12  they  captured 
the  Correo,  on  the  17th  the  Rafaelita,  which,  as  the  Correo  Mexi- 
cano,  had  been  commanded  in  1835  by  Lieutenant  T.  M.  Thomp- 
son, and  soon  afterwards  the  Abispa. 

In  a  letter  reviewing  the  cruise  of  the  Brutus  and  Invincible,  the 
secretary  of  the  navy  declared  that  their  brilliant  exploits  were 
attributable  to  the  skill,  courage,  and  determination  of  the  officers 
and  crews;  and  that,  if  Congress  would  only  extend  its  fostering 
protection  and  support  to  the  navy,  the  names  of  Geo.  W.  Wheel- 
right,  Henry  L.  Thompson,  and  Jas.  D.  Boylan  would  "stand 
brightly  conspicuous  in  the  pages  of  our  national  history."4 

What  followed  this  hopeful  prediction  is  an  illustration  of  the 
irony  of  history;  Captain  Boylan  was  ordered  by  the  acting  secre- 
tary of  the  navy  to  superintend  the  collection  of  evidence  con- 
cerning the  charges  preferred  against  Captain  Thompson  and  the 

1See  House  Journal,  1st  Tex.  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  pp.  84-87. 
2See  above,   pp.   258-260. 

"Boylan  to  Fisher,  September  1,  1837,  Navy  Papers,  Texas  State  Library. 
*S.  Rhoads  Fisher  to  John  Birdsall,  T.  J.  Gazley  and  others,  September 
4,  1837,  in  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  September  9,  1837. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  55 

other  officers  of  the  Invincible,1  while  the  president  himself  took 
in  charge  the  head  of  the  navy  and  secured  his  removal,  as  haa 
been  shown.  In  studying  the  records  concerning  the  trial  of  these 
officers,  one  finds  it  difficult  to  believe  that  they  were  treated  with 
justice.  The  one,  without  being  found  guilty,  was  dismissed  from 
service;  and  what  might  have  been  the  fortune  of  the  other,  but 
for  the  fact  that  death  prevented  his  trial,  must  remain  uncertain. 
The  Brutus  did  much  to  help  the  Eepublic  of  Texas  in  its  in- 
fancy, and  they  who  served  aboard  her  should  ever  be  remembered 
by  Texans  with  that  degree  of  respect  and  admiration  to  which  the 
heroic  pioneers,  be  their  services  on  sea  or  land,  are  entitled. 

VIII.      THE  INDEPENDENCE. 

In  the  study  of  the  beginnings  of  the  Texas  navy  the  incidents 
connected  with  the  purchase  of  the  Independence  have  already 
been  recounted.2  On  January  10,  1836,  commanded  by  Captain 
Charles  E.  Hawkins,3  she  began  her  first  cruise.  From  New 
Orleans  she  went  to  Galveston,  and  then  proceeded  along  the  Mexi- 
can coast,  capturing  and  destroying  a  considerable  number  of 
small  craft,  with  all  material  on  board  that  could  be  used  to  the 
injury  of  Texas.  Captain  Hawkins,  however,  always  respected  the 
private  property  of  the  Mexicans.  The  Independence  returned  to 
New  Orleans  to  refit,  and  soon  after,  March  12,  1836,  Hawkins  re- 
ceived his  commission  from  the  General  Convention  as  captain  of 
the  Independence.  He  was  senior  captain  of  the  Texas  navy,  and 
President  Burnet,  with  the  consent  of  his  cabinet,  appointed  him 
commodore.4  The  Independence  thus  became  the  flagship  of  the 
fleet.  Captain  Hawkins  was  present  at  the  seat  of  governmjht 

^House  Journal,  2d  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  and  2d  Sessions,  170. 

2See  THE  QUARTERLY,  XII,  202-203. 

8According  to  Tennison's  Journal.,  other  officers  of  the  Independence 
were:  First  Lieutenant  Galligher,  Second  Lieutenant  James  Mellus, 

Sailingmaster  W.  P.  Bradburn,  Chief  Surgeon  A.  Levy,  Purser Leving, 

Midshipmen  William  A.  Tennison,  and  E.  B.  Harrington,  Boatswain 
Robert  Gyles,  and  Gunner  George  Marion.  There  was  a  crew  of  forty 
men.  The  Texas  Almanac, '  I860.  p.  165,  erroneously  makes  Galligher  a 
Lieutenant  on  the  Brutus.  The  Purser,  Leving,  was  probably  the  same 
man  as  Lieutenant  William  H.  Leving  of  the  Invincible,  who  was  detained 
on  board  the  Bravo,  and  who  was  shot  by  order  of  Santa  Anna  in  April, 
1836.  See  pp.  6-7,  above. 

4See  Burnet's  Message  in  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  October  11, 
1836. 


56  The  Independence. 

when  he  was  commissioned,  and  at  once  started  for  Matagorda  to 
join  his  vessel  for  a  cruise.  On  the  21st  of  March,  in  company 
with  Captain  William  A.  Kurd,  he  passed  through  San  Felipe,  and 
the  editor  of  the  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register*-  said  of  them: 

.  .  .  The  chivalry  and  determined  character  of  these  gentle- 
men is  so  well  known  that  we  are  impatient  to  have  them  meet  the 
force  of  the  tyrant.  Liberty  and  laurels  will  then  waive  over 
tyranny  and  defeat. 

Arrived  at  Matagorda,  Gommodore  Hawkins  reorganized  his 
corps  of  officers,2  and  March  20th  the  Independence  started  on 
her  second  cruise. 

After  destroying  a  number  of  small  Mexican  vessels  during  the 
earlier  part  of  April,  the  Independence  became  engaged  with  two 
brigs  of  war,  the  Urrea  and  the  Bravo,  and  an  unknown  schooner,  of 
which  the  two  brigs  carried  together  twenty  guns,  while  the  Inde- 
pendence carried  only  eight.  Before  beginning  the  engagement, 
Commodore  Hawkins  asked  his  men  if  he  should  do  so  and  was 
answered  with  cheers.  He  then  made  the  attack,  but  the  Mexican 
vessels  soon  drew  off.  The  Independence  then  waited,  expecting 
them  to  renew  the  fight ;  but  they  did  not,  and  she  sailed  to  Gal- 
veston,  hoping  to  return  with  the  Invincible  and  the  Brutus  and 
to  capture  the  Mexican  vessels.3  The  plan,  however,  was  not  car- 
ried out.  The  Texan  government,  believing  that  a  descent  upon 

'Issue  of  March  24,  1836. 

2In  Tennison's  Journal  the  following  changes  are  noted:  George  Wheel- 
wright was  made  Captain,  James  Mellus  was  promoted  to  the  first  lieu- 
tenancy, Frank  B.  Wright  became  second  lieutenant,  and  J.  W.  Taylor, 
tHrd.  Thomas  Crosby  was  appointed  lieutenant  of  marines;  Joseph 
Hill,  an  additional  midshipman;  William  T.  Brennan,  captain's  clerk, 
and  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop,  supernumerary.  All  the  rest  of  the  officers  of  the 
first  cruise  except  Lieutenant  Galligher  were  retained  for  the  second. 
But  before  the  vessel  sailed  Mellus  was  ordered  to  the  Invincible;  Wright, 
Taylor  and  Lothrop  became  respectively  first,  second  and  third  lieutenant, 
and  Brennan  became  purser  in  place  of  Leving,  who  resigned.  Captain 
Wheelwright  was  originally  assigned  with  the  Liberty,  but  at  this  time 
Captain  Brown  had  that  vessel  off  on  a  cruise. 

3Tennison's  Journal,  folios  314-316.  Tennison  writes  two  accounts  of 
this  engagement,  and  one  of  them  says  that  Commodore  Hawkins  was 
disappointed  to  find  that  the  Brutus  and  Invinvible  had,  without  his 
orders,  gone  to  New  York,  which  prevented  his  returning  to  the  attack. 
This  would  fix  the  date  of  the  encounter  early  in  August.  T  have  fol- 
lowed the  account  which  is  evidently  the  more  accurate  and  which  fixes 
it  in  April. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  57 

Galveston  Island  by  the  Mexicans  was  to  be  expected,  detained  the 
Independence*  to  assist  in  the  fortification  of  the  island.1 

While  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Independence  were  anxiously 
on  the  lookout  from  day  to  day,  to  be  ready  for  the  reputed  in- 
vasion by  sea,  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto  was  fought  and  won  by 
Texas  on  the  21st  day  of  April,  1836.  The  news  was  brought  to 
Galveston  by  Eobert  J.  Calder,  who  had  commanded  a  company 
in  the  battle,  and  Benjamin  C.  Franklin,  who  was  judge  of  the 
admiralty  court  of  the  district  of  Brazos,  but  had  fought  as  a 
private  a,t  San  Jacinto.  They  made  the  trip  to  Galveston  in  a 
row-boat,  and  arrived  on  the  28th.  Captain  William  S.  Brown, 
of  the  Invincible,  was  the  first  to  hail  them  with  the  question, 
''What  news?"  The  account  of  what  followed  is  taken  from  the 
historian  Thrall,  who  had  it  from  Calder  himself  :2 

"When  I  told  him,  his  men,"  says  Calder,  "literally  lifted  us 
on  board,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  wildest  excitement  Brown  took 
off  his  hat  and  gave  us  three  cheers,  and  threw  it  as  far  as  he 
could  into  the  bay.  He  then  shouted  to  his  men,  'Turn  loose 
Long  Tom/  After  three  discharges,  he  suddenly  stopped  and  said : 
'Hold  on,  boys,  or  old  Hawkins  (the  senior  commodore)  will  put 
me  in  irons  again.' ':  Declining  to  wait  for  anything  to  eat,  they 
were  treated  to  the  best  liquor  on  the  ship.  They  entered  the 
captain's  gig,  and  with  four  stalwart  seamen  started  for  the  harbor. 
The  Independence,  the  flagship  of  Commodore  Hawkins,  was 
anchored  between  them  and  the  landing.  As  they  approached  the 
ship,  Commodore  Hawkins,  with  his  glass,  recognized  Franklin 
and  Calder,  and  began  eagerly  hailing  for  the  news.  When  they 
were  sufficiently  near  to  be  understood,  a  scene  of  excitement  en- 
sued beggaring  description;  and  now  it  spread  from  vessel  to  ves- 
sel, reached  groups  on  the  land,  and  the  welkin  rang  with  shoi^: 
after  shout,  until  the  people  were  hoarse,  Hawkins  fired  thirteen 
guns.  We  suppose  this  was  for  the  old  thirteen  colonies,  as  Hawkins 
had  been  in  the  U.  S.  navy.  When  the  Commodore  learned 
that  they  had  been  fasting  for  twenty-four  hours,  he  had  a  sump- 
tuous dinner  prepared,  and  the  party  did  not  need  much  urging 
to  stay  and  partake  of  the  hospitalities  of  the  old  salt.  They  were 
staying  a  little  too  long,  and  finally  Hawkins  hinted  that  they 
had  better  go  ashore  and  report  to  the  President. 

President  Burnet,  who  was  a  great  stickler  for  official  preroga- 
tive, was  a  little  miffed  that  everybody  on  the  island  should  have 

'Yoakum,  II,  124. 
2Thrall,  519,  note. 


58  The  Independence. 

heard  the  glorious  news  before  he  was  notified  of  the  battle  and 
its  result ;  and  when  the  party  reached  the  President's  marquee  they 
were  received,  as  Calder  says,  "with  stately  courtesy — which  at 
first  we  did  not  understand,  thinking  a  little  more  cordiality  and 
less  formality  would  have  suited  the  case  and  the  messengers. 
This,  however  (continues  our  narrative)  gradually  subsided,  and 
the  president,  before  the  interview  closed,  treated  us  with  that 
grace  and  genial  courtesy  for  which,  throughout  life,  he  was  ever 
distinguished. 

The  president  hastened  to  the  battlefield;  but  having  arrived 
there,  he  thought  best  to  return  to  the  coast.  Accordingly,  on  the 
5th  of  May  he  and  his  Cabinet  and  General  Houston,  with  Santa 
Anna,  Cos,  and  other  Mexican  prisoners,  took  passage  on  the 
Yellowstone  back  to  Galveston  Island.  No  accommodations  being 
found  there,  Santa  Anna  was  transferred  to  the  Independence;  and, 
when  President  Burnet  and  the  Cabinet  came  on  board,  sail  was 
made  on  the  8th  for  Velasco,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Brazos.  Yelasco 
was  the  great  seaport  of  the  Republic  at  that  time.  Arrived  at 
Velasco,  President  Santa  Anna  entered  into  negotiations  with  his 
captors,  which  resulted  in  a  treaty;  and  one  of  the  stipulations 
was  that  he  was  to  be  sent  to  Vera  Cruz  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
We  have  already  noted  how  he  was  taken  from  the  Invincible? 
which  was  to  carry  him  and  the  commissioners  to  Vera  Cruz. 

Before  this  occurred,  however,  the  Independence  left  Velasco  for 
New  Orleans.  It  reached  that  city  in  seven  days,  on  June  13, 
and,  below  the  Point,  announced  its  arrival  by  Hawkins'  favorite 
salute  of  thirteen  guns.2  Peter  W.  Grayson  and  James  Collins- 
worth  were  on  board  as  passengers.  They  were  clothed  with  full 
^,ower  to  negotiate  with  the  United  States  Government  for  recog- 
nition of  the  independence  of  Texas,  and  left  the  next  day  for 
Washington  for  that  purpose.  The  Independence  cruised  thence 
as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Eio  Grande,  and  for  some  reason,  pos- 
sibly for  supplies,  returned  to  New  Orleans  on  August  3,  1836. 3 
It  reported  the  blockade  of  Matamoras  an  effective  one,  three 
Texan  vessels  being  on  guard. 

On  the  12th  of  August,  the  Independence  spoke  the  schooner 

^ee  above,  p.  256. 

THE  QUABTEBLY,  IV,  151,  quoting  from  the  New  Orleans  Commercial 
Bulletin,  June  14,  1836. 

'New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  August  4,   1836. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  59 

of  war  Terrible  at  the  northeast  pass  of  the  Mississippi,  and  in- 
formed that  vessel  that  she  was  on  her  way  to  Matamoras  to  assist 
the  Invincible  in  the  blockade;  when  she  arrived,  however,  the 
latter  had  left  for  New  York.  With  the  Invincible  and  the  Brutus 
in  New  York,  and  the  Liberty  detained  in  New  Orleans,  Texas 
now  found  herself  in  momentary  expectation  of  an  invasion  with 
only  the  Independence  and  four  small  privateers  available  for  the 
defense  of  her  coast.1 

Toward  the  end  of  the  year  Commodore  Hawkins  again  sailed 
for  New  Orleans  to  refit;  and  in  January,  1837,  he  died  of  small- 
pox at  Madam  Hale's  residence  on  Canal  Street.2  While  he  was 
only  thirty-six  years  old  at  the  time,  he  had  had  a  varied  experience, 
and  had  made  a  favorable  impression  upon  every  one  with  whom 
he  came  into  contact.  When  a  mere  youth  he  entered  the  United 
States  navy  as  a  midshipman  and  was  soon  promoted  to  a  lieu- 
tenancy; but,  being  of  a  restless  disposition,  on  the  outbreak  of 
the  Mexican  Eevolution  he  resigned  his  commission  and  entered 
the  Mexican  service  with  Commodore  Porter  with  the  rank  of 
post-captain.  Off  Cuba  he  did  excellent  service  and  became  a 
terror  to  the  Spanish  shipping.  He  resigned  his  position  at  the 
end  of  the  revolution  and  in  1834  was  a  popular  captain  on  the 
Chattahoochee  Eiver.  In  the  fall  of  1835  he  joined  Mexia's  ill-fated 
expedition  as  aide-de-camp  and  after  its  failure  came  to  Texas.3 
He  presented  himself  to  Governor  Smith,  and  received  from  him 
the  following  letter  :4 

Executive  Department  of  Texas. 
To  Stephen  F.  Austin,  B.  T  Archer  and  Wm  H  Wharton,  Esqrs— 

Agents  of  the  People  of  Texas  to  the  United  States  of  America. 

Gentlemen 

This  will  probably  be  handed  you  by  Majr  Charles  if. 
Hawkins,  a  gentleman  whose  experience  and  ability  in  naval 
affairs  would  render  his  services  acceptable  in  any  govt — and  more 
particularly  in  ours,  which  is  just  emerging  from  chaos.  The 
zeal  and  patriotism  with  which  Majr  Hawkins  has  espoused  our 
cause  entitles  him  to  the  highest  commendation.  He  has  identified 

lHouse  Journal,  1st  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  97. 
2Tennison's  Journal,  folio  314. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  September  8,   1838;   Yoakum,  II,  39. 
4Smith  to  Archer,  Wharton,  and  Austin,  December  20,  1835,  in  Austin 
Papers. 


60  The  Independence. 

himself  with  us  by  taking  the  oath  and  performing  the  necessary 
requisites  to  become  a  citizen.  I  confidently  hope  that  you  will 
properly  appreciate  the  worth  and  abilities  of  Majr  Hawkins  and 
assign  him  such  duties  in  fitting  out  our  Navy  as  his  experience 
and  abilities  will  warrant  and  also,  such,  a  command  in  it  as  his 
zeal  patriotism  and  your  better  judgments  may  direct.  I  am 
Gentlemen, 

Your  obt  servant 

HENRY  SMITH 

Governor. 
San  Filipe  de  Austin,  Dec  20,  1835 

The  commission  appointed  him  to  the  command  of  the  Inde- 
pendence. Soon  afterward  he  was  appointed  commodore  by  Presi- 
dent Burnet;  and,  holding  that  distinguished  title  at  the  head  of 
a  small  but  successful  navy,  he  died  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty 
and  in  favor  with  his  countrymen. 

Owing  to  Commodore  Hawkins's  death,  there  were  some  changes 
in  the  official  staff  of  the  Independence;  and,  when  she  left  New 
Orleans  on  what  was  destined  to  be  her  last  cruise,  April  10,  1837, 
George  Wheelwright  was  captain,  and  John  W.  Taylor,  J.  T.  K. 
Lothrop,  Eobert  Cassin,  and  W.  P.  Bradburn  were  lieutenants.1 
A  number  of  passengers  were  on  board,  among  whom  were  Col. 
Wm.  H.  Wharton,  minister  to  the  United  States,  then  on  his  re- 
turn to  Texas;  Captain  Darocher,  Dr.  Eichard  Cochran,  and 
George  Estis,  a  lieutenant  in  the  Texas  navy.  They  had  smooth 
sailing  until  the  morning  of  April  17,  when  the  Independence  was 
attacked  by  two  Mexican  war  vessels;  and  after  a  running  fight 
of  four  hours  she  was  forced  to  surrender. 

Texans  who  saw  only  the  close  of  the  fight,  and  were  not  ac- 
tjjGiainted  with  the  details,  conceived  at  first  that  the  Independence 
had  struck  without  a  blow;  and  it  was  not  until  an  official  report 
of  it  was  sent  from  Brazos  Santiago  by  the  officer  in  command, 
and  corroborated  from  other  sources,  that  the  Texans  would  speak 
of  the  affair.'  The  following  sentiments2  expressed  the  voice  of 
the  people  before  and  after  the  official  account  arrived: 

X0ther  officers  were  Surgeon  Levy,  Purser  Brannon,  Lieutenant  of 
Marines  Thomas  Crosby,  Midshipmen  Wm.  A.  Tennison,  E.  B.  Harring- 
ton, Joseph  Hill,  and  Whitmore,  Boatswain  Robert  Gyles,  Gunner 

George  Marion. 

^Telegraph  ana  Teadas  Register,  June  8.    1837. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  Ql 

We  rejoice  that  we  are  at  length  enabled  to  furnish  the  official 
account  of  the  capture  of  the  Independence.  We  have  hitherto 
forborne  offering  any  comment  upon  the  former  vague  accounts  of 
this  transaction,  as  we  felt  confident  that  many  important  facts 
had  been  overlooked  which  would  completely  exculpate  our  gallant 
tars  from  any  disparaging  imputation.  We  confess  that  when  the 
first  news  of  this  combat  arrived.,  containing  the  intellegence  that 
the  Independence  had  surrendered  to  two  Mexican  brigs  without 
having  received  any  injury,  and  her  crew  unhurt,  a  flash  of  shame 
and  indignation  mantled  on  our  cheeks  and  the  exclamation,  "30 
or  40  cowards  and  an  old  hulk  are  no  loss,"  almost  involuntarily 
fell  from  our  lips;  better  we  thought  it  would  have  been  if  this 
crew  dauntlessly  nailing  this  unsullied  flag  to  the  masthead,  hurl- 
ing their  mortal  defiance  to  the  groveling  foe — had  fought  on,  and 
on,  shouting  the  stern  war  cry  of  "victory  or  death,"  until  the 
star  of  Texas,  like  the  "star  of  day,"  went  down  in  glory  beneath 
the  blood  red  billows,  where  foaming  crests  were  singing  to  the 
last  exulting  cry  of  an  unconquered  band  of  freemen. 

But  the  following  statements  have  fully  convinced  us  that  we 
did  injustice  to  these  gallant  tars,  in  harboring  even  for  a  moment 
a  thought  so  unworthy  of  them  and  of  the  Texian  name. 

Far  from  blaming  them  for  this  surrender,  we  rejoice  that  they 
may  yet  be  preserved  to  ride  through  the  battle  storm  which  shall 
rend  the  tyrant  banner  from  the  mast  it  disgraces.  This  desperate 
and  protracted  conflict  will  long  hold  a  prominent  place  in  the 
annals  of  Texas,  and  like  the  fall  of  the  Alamo,  it  shall  inspire 
our  children  with  ennobling  sentiments.  No  flush  of  shame  shall 
redden  their  youthful  cheeks  as  they  read  the  page  which  declares 
that  thirty-one  Texians  six  only  of  these  seamen,  in  a  slow  sail- 
ing armed  schooner,  mounting  only  six  sixes  and  one  long  nine 
fought  four  hours  and  a  half,  two  Mexican  armed  brigs,  one 
mounting  "16  medium  eigh  teens"  with  a  crew  of  140  men;  the 
other  mounting  "8  brass  12  pounders"  and  one  long  eighteen  mid- 
ship, with  a  crew  of  120  men  !  One  is  astonished  in  reflecting  that 
this  little  vessel  was  not  annihilated  by  the  first  broadside  from 
her  powerful  opponents,  her  dauntless  little  crew  appear  to  have 
been  preserved  almost  bv  a  miracle,  and  it  is  cheering  to  reflect 
that  their  heroic  conduct  has  furnished  new  proofs  that  our  na- 
tional escutcheon  yet  remains  bright  and  untarnished.  True,  the 
flag  of  our  country  has  once  been  struck  on  the  stormy  billows 
of  the  Gulf,  but  like  the  Eoman  eagle  stooping  before  the  sword 
of  Epirus,  it  has  wrung  from  the  abashed  conquerer  the  bitter 
confession,  "Such  men  are  invincible." 

The  official  report1  of  the  battle,  written  by  Lieutenant,  J.  W. 
telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  June  8,  1837. 


62  The  Independence. 

Taylor,  who  succeeded  Captain  Wheelwright  in  command  after 
the  latter  was  wounded,  is  as  follows : 

Brazos  de  St  lago  April  21st  1837 
To  the  Honorable  S  Rhoads  Fisher,  Secretary  of  the  Navy 

Sir — I  have  the  honor  hereby  to  transmit  you  an  account  of 
the  late  engagement  between  our  government  vessel  Independence 
and  two  of  the  enemy's  brigs  of  war,  one  the  Libertador  of  sixteen 
eighteen  pounders,  140  men;  the  other,  the  Yincedor  del  Alamo, 
mounting  six  twelve-pounders,  and  a  long  eighteen  amidships, 
with  one  hundred  men.  Captain  Wheelright  having  during  the 
action  received  a  very  dangerous  wound,  the  duty  of  sending  this 
melancholy  communication  has  devolved  upon  me,  towit: 

On  the  morning  of  the  17th,  in  latitude  29  deg.  N.,  longitude 
95  deg.  20  min.  W.,  at  5  h.  30  m  A.  M.  discovered  two  sail  about 
6  miles  to  windward;  immediately  beat  to  quarters;  upon  making 
us  out  they  bore  down  for  us  with  all  sail  set,  signalized,  and 
then  spoke  each  other.  At  9  h.  30  m.,  the  Vincedor  del  Alamo  bore 
away,  getting  in  our  wake  to  rake  us,  the  Libertador  keeping  well 
on  our  weather  quarter,  we  immediately  hoisted  our  colors  at  the 
peak.  The  enemy  in  a  few  minutes  hoisting  theirs,  the  Libertador 
on  our  weather  quarter  edging  down  for  us  all  the  time,  till  within 
about  one  mile,  gave  us  a  broadside,  without  wounding  any  of  our 
men  or  doing  other  damage ;  the  fire  was  at  the  same  time  returned 
from  our  weather  battery,  consisting  of  three  sixes  and  the  pivot, 
a  long  nine,  the  wind  blowing  fresh,  and  from  our  extreme  low- 
ness  our  lee  guns  were  continually  under  water,  and  even  the 
weather  ones  occasionally  dipped  their  muzzles  quite  under.  The 
firing  on  both  sides  was  thus  briskly  kept  up  for  nearly  two  hours, 
the  raking  shots  from  the  Vincedor  in  our  wake  nearly  all  passing 
over  our  heads,  as  yet  sustaining  but  trifling  injury ;  at  9  h.  30  m. 
the  Libertador  on  our  wealher  quarter,  bore  away  and  run  down 
till  within  two  cables  length  of  us,  luffed  and  gave  us  a  broad- 
sidg^of  round  shot,  grape  and  canister,  while  all  this  time  the  brig 
Yincedor  in  our  wake  continued  her  raking  fire.  Notwithstand- 
ing this  we  still  continued  on  our  course  for  Yelasco,  maintaining 
a  hot  action  for  full  15  minutes,  with  some  effect  upon  her  sails 
and  rigging.  The  Libertador  now  hauled  her  wind,  widening  her 
distance,  apparently  wishing  to  be  further  from  us,  when  she 
again  opened  her  fire,  which  was  on  our  part  kept  up  without 
cessation.  At  11  A.  M.  she  again  bore  away,  run  down  close  to 
our  quarter  and  gave  us  another  broadside  of  round  shot,  grape 
and  canister,  which  told  plainly  on  our  sails  and  rigging ;  as  be- 
fore she  again  hauled  her  wind  to  her  former  position,  and  played 
us  briskly  with  round  shot,  one  of  which  struck  our  hull,  going 
through  our  copper  and  buried  itself  in  her  side.  At  11  h.  30  m. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  @3 

A.  M.  a  round  shot  passed  through  our  quarter  gallery,  against 
which  Captain  Wheelright  was  leaning,  inflicted  a  severe  wound  on 
his  right  side,  knocked  the  speaking  trumpet  out  of  his  hand,  ter- 
ribly lacerating  three  of  his  fingers;  he  was  conveyed  below  to  the 
surgeon,  leaving  orders  with  me  to  continue  the  action.  We  still 
held  on  our  course  in  our  respective  positions,  keeping  up  an  in- 
cessant fire,  for  full  half  hour,  when  the  enemy  signalized;  then 
the  Vincedor  in  our  wake  luffed  up  and  gained  well  on  our  weather 
quarter;  at  that  time  the  Libertador,  on  our  weather  beam  bore 
away  and  ran  down  under  our  stern  within  pistol  shot,  our  decks 
being  completely  exposed  to  her  whole  broadside,  and  at  the  same 
time  open  to  the  raking  fire  of  the  Vincedor  on  our  weather  quar- 
ter. In  this  situation,  further  resistance  being  utterly  fruitless, 
and  our  attempts  to  beach  the  vessel  ineffectual,  I  received  orders, 
from  Captain  Wheelright  to  surrender,  which  was  done. 

The  only  damage  done  to  our  vessel,  was  that  of  parting  some 
of  our  rigging,  splitting  the  sails,  a  round  shot  in  her  hull,  and 
the  quarter  gallery,  which  was  shot  away.  Captain  Wheelright 
was  the  only  person  wounded  on  board.  We  shot  away  the  Liber- 
tador s  main  top-gallant  mast,  unshipped  one  of  her  gun  carriages, 
took  a  chip  off  the  after  part  of  the  foremast,  killed  two  men,  and 
cut  her  sails  and  rigging  severely.  We  were  immediately  boarded 
by  capt  Davis  of  the  Libertador,  who  pledged  his  honor,  and 
that  of  Commodore  Lopez,  who  was  then  on  board,  that  we  should 
receive  honorable  treatment  as  prisoners  of  war,  as  officers  and 
gentlemen,  and  as  soon  as  an  exchange  could  be  effected,  we  should 
be  sent  home.  The  kind  attention  and  courtesy  we  have  received 
from  Commodore  Lopez,  Captain  Davis  and  officers  has  been  truly 
great  for  which  we  tender  them  our  sincere  thanks,  likewise  Cap- 
tain Thompson  of  the  schooner  of  war  Bravo  has  extended  every 
civility  and  kindness.  We  leave  this  place  tomorrow  for  Mata- 
moras :  what  disposition  will  be  made  of  us  I  know  not. 

Besides  the  officers  and  crew  of  our  vessel,  we  had  on  board  as 
passengers,  the  honorable  Wm.  H.  Wharton,  Mr.  Levy,  Surgeon^ 
T.    K,  captain  Darocher,  T.  A.,1  Mr.   Thayer,  of  Boston,  Mr. 
Wooster,  English  subject,  George  Etess,  acting  lieutenant  T.  N. 
and  Mr.  Henry  Childs. 

I  remain  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servent, 

J.  W.  Taylor,  Lieut. 

[P.  S.]  Our  crew  consisted  of  31  men  and  boys,  besides  the 
officers;  out  of  this  number  there  were  six  seamen,  the  balance 
not  knowing  one  part  of  the  ship  from  the  other,  and  it  was  with 
great  difficulty  that  we  obtained  this  crew  while  in  New  Orleans. 

intended  for  N. 


64  The  Independence. 

Tennison's  Journal  mentions  one  incident  connected  with  the 
surrender,  not  referred  to  in  the  official  account.  He  says  that 
upon  Davis's  demand  to  surrender  Taylor  said  to  him:  "Sir,  I 
am  your  prisoner,  but  my  sword  you  shall  never  receive,"  so  he 
threw  it  overboard.1 

The  surrender  took  place  within  plain  view  of  Velasco,  and  the 
whole  town,  including  the  secretary  of  the  navy,  S.  Ehoads  Fisher, 
turned  out  to  see  the  struggle.  Their  criticism  of  the  government, 
for  not  keeping  its  vessels  well  manned  and  provisioned  to  guard 
the  Texas  coast,  instead  of  leaving  them  in  New  Orleans  for 
months  trying  to  get  outfitted,  was  the  spur  which  impelled  Fisher 
to  give  the  matter  his  entire  attention,  and  to  take  passage  on  the 
Invincible  a  few  weeks  after  this,  in  order  to  give  the  Mexicans 
battle.  His  efforts,  and  their  results  have  been  noticed  in  the 
history  of  these  two  vessels. 

The  Independence  and  the  prisoners  were  carried  to  Brazos  San- 
tiago by  the  victorious  vessels.2  The  Mexican  papers  state  that 
the  Independence  was  bravely  defended  before  she  was  taken. 
Their  notices  of  the  capture  include  also  the  information  that  one 
of  her  guns  was  an  eight  pounder,  lost  by  the  Mexicans  some  time 
since  at  San  Jacinto.  It  was  considered  by  the  Texans  one  of 
their  chief  trophies,  and  bore  the  initials  of  many  of  the  principal 
ladies  of  Texas.  The  principal  officers  of  the  Independence  re- 
ceived the  kindest  of  treatment  through  the  special  orders  of  Pres- 
ident Bustamente.  For  the  first  three  months  of  their  imprison- 
ment the  crew  were  treated  rather  harshly,  but  after  that  they 
had  no  complaints  to  make.  For  many  favors  the  officers  and 
crew  felt  especially  grateful  to  the  president,  to  Commodore 
uopez,  and  to  Captains  Martinez.  Davis,  and  Thomas  Thompson. 
Through  the  instrumentality  of  Captain  Thompson,  Captain 
Wheelwright  and  Dr.  Levy,  with  the  consent  of  all  the  officers  of 
the  Independence,  made  their  escape  early  in  July,3  Captain 
Thompson  accompanying  them,  and  leaving  the  Mexican  service 
to  join  the  Texas  navy.4  After  arriving  in  Texas,  Thompson  was 

Tennison's  Journal,  folio  316,  p.  3. 

zGazeta  de  Tampico,  April  29.  1837;  Mercurio  de  Matamoros,  April  21, 
1837. 

3New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  July  12,   1837. 
*See  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  July  8,  1837. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  65 

appointed  post-captain  at  Gralveston,  where  Alex.  Thompson,  the 
chief  hydrographer  for  Texas,  had  selected  a  suitable  site  for  a 
navy  yard1  for  the  Eepublic.  The  interest  that  the  Texan  Congress 
took  in  the  release  of  the  prisoners,  and  President  Houston's  atti- 
tude toward  the  effort  have  already  been  noticed.2  In  his  message 
of  November  21,  1837,3  Houston  recites  the  unsuccessful  attempt 
of  the  government,  through  the  agency  of  John  A.  Wharton,  to 
secure  an  exchange;  but  consoles  himself  with  the  fact  that  some 
of  the  prisoners  escaped  and  that  President  Bustamente  set  the 
others  free  in  October.  Before  learning  of  their  release,  Congress, 
spurred  on  by  Houston,  passed  a  joint  resolution  authorizing  re- 
prisals upon  Mexico;  but  this  was  withdrawn  upon  their  arrival 
at  Galveston,  November  4. 

On  December  14,  1837,  Congress  appropriated  $250,000  for 
back  pay  of  officers,  soldiers,  and  sailors,  and  a  joint  resolution  of 
December  18  authorized  the  auditor  to  settle  with  Thomas  Bren- 
nan,  purser  of  the  Independence,  the  claims  of  the  officers  and  crew 
of  that  vessel.4 

There  was  one  other  vessel  connected  with  the  Texan  naval  es- 
tablishment. Her  mission  seems  to  have  been  a  peaceful  one. 
This  was  the  receiving  vessel  Potomac.  She  was  purchased  from 
Captain  L.  M.  Hitchcock,5  formerly  a  lieutenant  on  the  Invincible, 
for  $8000.  Later,  by  recommendation  of  the  secretary  of  the 
navy,  she  became  a  pilot  boat  at  Galveston. 

Here  ends  the  history  of  the  first  navy  of  Texas.  As  early  as 
1836,  however,  the  Eepublic  of  Texas  was  anxious  to  have  a 
stronger  navy,  and  Congress  passed  favorably  on  measures  for 
procuring  a  new  and  stronger  fleet,  composed  principally  of  steam 
vessels.  The  account  of  this  movement,  the  acquisition  of  tire 
vessels,  and  their  history,  is  distinctly  separate  from  that  of  the 
first  navy  of  the  Eepublic,  and  it  will  be  given  next. 

Gurnet  issued  a  decree  on  April  21,   1836,  establishing  a  naval  depot 
at  Galveston  Island.     See  Texas  Almanac,  1869,  p.  57. 
2See   pp,   263-264,   above. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  November  25,   1837. 
4Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  1398,   1399. 
5See  House  Journal,  3d  Tex.  Cong.,  18. 


66  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

IX.   MEASURES  TO  PROCURE  A  SECOND  NAVY. 

The  vessels  of  the  first  navy  were  lost  through  captures,  wrecks, 
and  other  misfortunes.  But  Texas,  possessing  as  she  did  such  an 
extensive  sea-board,  could  not  expect  to  be  regarded  as  a  nation 
unless  she  had  a  navy  strong  enough  to  protect  her  coast  and 
harbors.  Emigrants  would  hesitate  to  risk  their  all  in  a  voyage 
to  a  country  not  prepared  to  protect  them  if  attacked  en  route. 
Trading  vessels  would  be  slow  to  bring  those  commodities  to  her 
shores  which  would  be  necessary  for  the  comfort  of  the  people. 
Exportation  would  likewise  be  dangerous.  Shipowners  would  dread 
capture  and  loss  of  their  vessels,  with  possible  imprisonment  in 
a  Mexican  dungeon.  Excessive  insurance  would  raise  the  price 
of  all  commodities  to  the  point  where  the  bare  necessities  of  life 
would  become  luxuries.  But,  with  proper  protection,  immigra- 
tion would  soon  fill  up  the  land;  and  the  increased  imports  and 
exports,  as  the  country  became  settled,  would  bring  a  revenue  in 
the  "way  of  customs  duties  that  would  eventually  pay  for  the 
maintenance  of  a  navy.  These  considerations  alone  would  justify 
the  expenditure  of  a  considerable  sum  by  Texas;  and  when,  in 
addition,  it  is  remembered  that  Mexico  had  in  no  wise  relinquished 
her  intention  of  reconquering  Texas,  and  would  sooner  or  later 
attack  her  by  land  and  by  sea,  the  reader  can  understand  why  it 
was  necessary  for  Texas  to  secure  and  maintain  at  any  cost  a 
navy  strong  enough  to  make  Mexico  fear  and  respect  her,  and  to 
impress  foreign  nations  with  the  stability  of  her  government. 

All  this  had  been  clearly  perceived  since  the  first  session  of  the 
first  congress  of  the  Eepublic.  On  October  26,  1836,  the  Com- 
i^ittee  on  Naval  Affairs  recommended  "the  immediate  building  or 
purchase"  of  one  twenty-four  gun  sloop,  a  ten  gun  steam  vessel, 
and  two  schooners  of  eleven  guns  each.  The  total  cost  of  the 
four  vessels  was  to  be  $135,000.1  An  act  was  passed  in  conformity 
with  these  resolutions,  authorizing  the  President  to  appoint  an 
agent  to  proceed  immediately  to  the  United  States,  to  purchase, 
or  contract  for  and  superintend  the  building  of,  the  desired  vessels. 
It  was  approved  by  President  Houston  November  18,  1836.  This 
increase  in  the  navy  was  planned  while  Texas  was  still  in  pos- 

^House  Journal,  1st  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  97-98;  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas, 
I,  1090;  Gouge,  Fiscal  History  of  Texas,  54. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  57 

session  of  several  war  vessels;  but  long  before  any  of  the  vessels 
of  the  new  navy  reached  the  Texan  shores,  the  last  of  the  old  navy, 
excepting  the  Potomac,  had  disappeared.  Owing  to  the  youth  of 
the  Republic,  and  the  uncertainty  of  her  future,  sufficient  money 
could  not  be  borrowed  to  carry  out  the  act;  and  it  therefore  re- 
mained ineffective. 

The  second  congress  found  it  imperative  to  act.  The  Inde- 
pendence had  been  captured  by  the  Mexicans,  and  the  Invincible 
wrecked,  leaving  the  Brutus  and  the  Potomac  sole  defenders  of 
six  hundred  miles  of  coast.  William  M.  Shepherd,  acting  secre- 
tary of  the  navy,  in  his  report  of  September  30,  1837,1  begs  earn- 
estly for  the  expenditure  of  a  few  thousand  dollars  to  prevent 
Mexico's  gaining  supremacy  of  the  Gulf.  Some  two  weeks  later 
the  Brutus  was  wrecked,  and  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs 
thereupon  framed  the  following  resolutions,  and  submitted  them 
to  the  Senate  for  action:2 

Eesolved  that  the  Senate  and  the  house  of  representatives  of 
the  Republic  of  Texas  in  congress  assembled  proceed  to  Elect  by 
joint  ballot  an  agent  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  repair  immediately 
to  Baltimore  or  some  other  seaport  town  of  the  United  States  of 
the  north  for  the  purpose  of  buying  or  building  arming  and  equip- 
ping for  the  public  service  of  the  Republic  of  Texas  one  corvette 
of  18.24  medium,  2-10  Gun  Briggs  mounting  medium  18  pound- 
ers— and  two  substantial  schooners  .  .  .  provided  the  cost  of 
said  vessels  shall  not  exceed  $250,000  which  said  amount  is  hereby 
appropriated  out  of  any  unappropriated  money  now  in,  or  that 
hereafter  may  be  in  the  treasury.  .  .  . 

The  resolution  was  amended  to  authorize  the  purchase  of  a  five 
hundred  ton  ship  mounting  eighteen  guns,  two  three  hundred  tdl 
brigs  of  twelve  guns  each,  and  three  schooners  of  one  hundred 
and  thirty  tons,  mounting  five  or  seven  guns  each;  to  appropriate 
two  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars  for  the  purpose;  to  in- 
struct the  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  furnish  said  agent  with  a 
draft  for  the  above  appropriated  sum  on  Messrs.  Gilmer  and 
Burnley,  the  "commissioners  to  negotiate  a  five  million  loan";3 
and  to  pledge  solemnly  the  public  faith  for  the  payment  of  this 

lRouse  Journal,  2nd  Texas  Cong.,  1st  and  2nd  Sessions,  166-172. 
2Archives  of  the  Department  of  State,  file  No.  764. 
3Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  IX,  1355-1356. 


58  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

amount.    It  became  a  law  with  the  President's  approval  on  Novem- 
ber 4,  1837.1 

To  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  act,  President  Houston  ap- 
pointed Peter  W.  Grayson  agent.  Grayson  had  represented  Texas 
as  commissioner  to  the  United  States  in  1836,  when  the  country 
was  seeking  recognition,  and  his  appointment  for  the  present  task 
was  considered  a  wise  one.  At  about  this  time,  however,  he  be- 
came candidate  for  the  presidency  of  Texas,  and  during  the  cam- 
paign committed  suicide  in  a  fit  of  despondency  at  Bean's  Station, 
Tennessee.  John  A.  Wharton  was  anxious  to  succeed  him,  but 
President  Houston  appointed  Samuel  M.  Williams.2  Williams  at 
once  executed  his  bond,  and  departed  for  Baltimore,  to  enter  ac- 
tively into  the  labors  of  procuring  a  navy  for  Texas. 

In  order  to  meet  immediate  needs,  an  effort  was  made  to  buy  the 
steam  ship  Pulaski;  and  Congress  authorized  her  purchase  at  an 
agreed  price;3  but  the  transaction  failed  through  the  refusal  of 
the  owners  to  deliver  her  at  Galveston,  on  the  ground  that 
our  ports  were  declared  by  the  enemy  to  be  under  blockade, 
and  that  the  blockade  was  reported  to  be  effective.  Be- 
fore any  agreement  could  be  arrived  at  she  was  destroyed.  The 
Potomac,  therefore,  was  the  only  vessel  that  was  in  the  service  of 
Texas  during  1838.  And  for  a  long  time  it  remained  doubtful 
whether  or  not  the  government  would  become  the  owner  of  this 
vessel.  The  secretary  of  the  navy  at  a  critical  hour  had  bought 
it  on  his  own  responsibility  from  Captain  L.  M.  Hitchcock  for 
eight  thousand  dollars  and  had  almost  completed  its  conversion 
into  a  brig  of  war,  when  all  further  work  on  it  was  suspended 
€ 

'Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  I,  1355-1356;  Gouge,  Fiscal  History  of  Texas,  70. 

"Report  of  Secretary  of  Navy  in  House  Journal,  3d  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess., 
15-20.  The  following  amusing  reason  is  given  for  the  president's  refusal 
to  appoint  John  A.  Wharton.  He  had  previously  appointed  William  H. 
Wharton  minister  to  the  United  States  to  secure  the  recognition  of  Texan 
independence.  It  is  related  that  Wharton  was  not  pleased  with  the  ap- 
pointment, and  remarked  that  the  president  was  sending  him  into  honorable 
exile  to  get  him  out  of  some  one  else's  way.  Houston  did  not  hear  of  this 
until  some  months  later,  when  John  A.  Wharton  applied  for  the  agency. 
Meeting  William  H.  Wharton  after  his  return  from  the  United  States,  the 
president  could  not  refrain  from  delivering  a  home  thrust.  "I  did  not 
appoint  John  A.  Wharton  naval  commissioner,"  he  said,  "because  I  did  not 
wish  to  drive  any  more  of  the  Wharton  family  into  exile." — Linn,  Rem- 
iniscences of  Fifty  Tears  in  Texas,  273. 

'Gammel,  Laws  of  Texa#,  I.  1392. 


The  Xavy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  69 

because  congress  had  made  no  provision  for  its  purchase.  This, 
however,  was  due  to  a  want  of  funds,  and  not  to  a  belief  in  con- 
gress that  the  vessel  was  not  needed.  The  secretary  of  the  navy 
in  his  report  of  October  30,  1838,  put  the  matter  before  the  presi- 
dent, and  urged  him  to  find  some  means  for  completing  the  trans- 
action.1 The  Potomac  seems  to  have  been  finally  acquired  by  the 
government,  though  no  record  of  the  transfer  can  be  found. 
The  secretary  of  the  navy  two  years  later  say? :- 

In  consequence  of  the  leaky  condition  of  the  brig  Potomac,  for- 
merly the  receiving  ship,  she  has  had  everything  removed  from 
her;  placed  securely  in  the  yard,  and  her  crew  transferred  to  the 
Wharton.  It  has  since  been  discovered,  and  prevented  as  far  as 
it  was  deemed  necessary,  to  keep  her  from  sinking.  This  vessel 
is  new  and  has  been  for  a  long  while,  perfectly  useless  to  the  Gov- 
ernment for  any  purpose  whatever,  and,  as  an  application  has  been 
made  by  the  Commander  of  the  station  to  transfer  her  to  the  pilot 
of  Galveston,  with  a  view  of  making  a  light  boat  of  her,  upon 
such  terms  as  he  believes  would  be  beneficial  to  the  public  interest, 
I  advise  this  measure,  believing  it  will  not  interfere  with  the  best 
interests  of  the  navy,  and  that  it  will  be  of  great  advantage  to 
our  growing  commerce. 

Xot  another  word  we  can  find  concerning  her,  except  in  the 
Tennison  Papers,  in  the  original  order  of  A.  C.  Hinton  command- 
ing the  naval  station  at  Galveston.  and  addressed  to  William  A. 
Tennison,  midshipman,  on  board  the  Potomac  at  Galveston,  order- 
ing him  to  report  to  Lieutenant  William  S.  Williamson  on  board 
the  brig  of  war  Brazos,  for  duty.3  This  is  the  only  time  the  brig 
of  war  Brazos  is  mentioned  officially  or  otherwise.  Where  she  came 
from,  or  what  became  of  her,  no  existing  documents  relate.  Under 
another  name,  she  may  have  played  some  part  in  Texas  history.* 
That  there  was  such  a  vessel  in  the  navy  in  1842,  there  is  no 
question,  as  the  document  mentioning  it  is  original  and  genuine. 

For  the  sake  of  economy,  the  president  ordered  the  secretary 
of  the  navy  to  disband  the  officers  and  men  of  the  navy  until  ves- 
sels could  be  procured  for  them.  Only  enough  were  retained  to 

*House  Journal,   3d  Tex.   Conor..   13 ;   Yoakum,  II,  242. 
2Report  of  November  4.  1840.  in  House  Journal.  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess., 
Appendix.  185-196. 

3Hinton  to  Tennison,  an  undated  autograph  letter  signed. 


70  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

man  the  Potomac  and  the  naval  station  at  Galveston.1  This  act> 
while  a  hardship  on  the  officers  and  men,  was  proper  under  the 
circumstances,  and  proved  quite  a  saving  to  the  government;  as 
it  was  some  time  before  the  men  were  needed. 

Fate  was  very  kind  to  Texas  at  this  time,  when  she  had  no 
navy  and  was  seemingly  at  the  mercy  of  her  enemy.  The  French 
government,  having  certain  claims  against  Mexico,  which  Mexico- 
declined  to  satisfy,  assembled  a  considerable  naval  force  at  Yera 
Cruz  and  declared  the  Mexican  ports  blockaded.  Shortly  after  the 
inauguration  of  the  new  president  of  Texas,  M.  B.  Lamar,  on 
December  9,  1838,  Texas  was  gratified  with  the  intelligence  of  the 
capture  of  Vera  Cruz.  The  blockade  of  the  French  having  failed 
to  bring  the  government  to  terms,  Admiral  Baudin  despatched  a 
messenger  to  General  Rincon,  the  Mexican  commandant,  inform- 
ing him  that  he  was  about  to  attack  the  castle  of  San  Juan 
d'Ulloa.  This  fortress,  situated  on  an  island  in  the  harbor  of  Vera 
Cruz,  was  defended  by  one  hundred  and  sixty  pieces  of  artillery 
and  some  five  thousand  men.  The  bombardment  commenced  about 
two  o'clock,  in  the  afternoon  of  the  27th  of  November,  and  was 
so  well  directed  that  in  four  hours,  after  a  loss  of  six  hundred 
men  in  killed  and  wounded,  the  Mexicans  capitulated  and  marched 
out  of  the  castle,  and  the  French  took  possession.  The  Mexican 
government  thereupon  despatched  Santa  Anna  with  five  thousand 
men  to  drive  the  French  out  of  the  place.  In  attempting  this,  he 
lost  his  leg,  and  many  of  his  troops  were  killed  and  wounded.  On 
March  9,  1839,  a  treaty  was  made  between  Mexico  and  France, 
which  was  shortly  afterwards  ratified,  and  the  French  forces  left 
the  territory  of  the  Republic.2 

1  On  his  way  home  Admiral  Baudin,  with  a  part  of  the  fleet, 
visited  Texas.  He  was  given  a  grand  welcome  to  Galveston  and 
to  Texas.  The  mayor  and  aldermen  of  Galveston  delivered  the 
keys  of  the  city  to  him.  and  Admiral  Baudin,  in  a  written  response, 
declared  that  he  was  glad  to  have  contributed  by  his  work  in 
Mexico  to  such  a  cause  as  the  independence  of  the  Texian  nation. 
He  said 

Report-  of  Secretary  of  Navy,  October  30,  1838,  in  House  Journal,  3d  Tex. 
Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  15-16. 

2Yoakum,  II,  242,  253,  255. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  71 

....  I  hope  it  will  prove,  too,  beneficial  to  the  several  nations, 
who,  either  as  friends  or  as  foes,  have  to  deal  with  Mexico.  Noth- 
ing could  be  more  gratifying  to  my  feelings  than  to  be  considered 
as  one  of  you,  gentlemen,  whose  industry  and  energy  I  do  so  much 
admire.  Be  assured  that  I  would  vastly  prefer  being  the  humblest 
member  of  a  well  regulated  and  thriving  community,  like  yours, 
than  to  moving  in  the  sphere  of  wealth  and  power  in  a  corrupt 
and  decaying  society.  With  the  highest  regard  and  respect,  I  have 
the  honor  to  be,  Gentlemen, 

Your  affectionate  and  devoted  Serv't,  CHARLES  BAUBIN.1 

To  understand  fully  the  gratitude  of  the  people  we  must  re- 
member that,  but  for  the  opportune  interference  of  the  French,  the 
whole  coast  of  Texas  would  have  been  at  the  mercy  of  any  fleet, 
however  small,  that  Mexico  might  have  sent  against  it.  Can  it  be 
wondered  at  that  Galveston  and  all  Texas  felt  that  France  had 
helped  to  fight  the  battles  of  the  Republic  ? 

While  Texas  was  thus  enjoying  a  respite  through  the  involun- 
tary assistance  of  France,  Mr.  Williams,  in  Baltimore,  was  doing 
all  in  his  power  to  obtain  proper  vessels  for  the  navy.  Owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  loan  was  not  effected  with  which  to  purchase  the 
fleet,  he  was  much  discouraged.  On  October  9,  1838,  he  wrote 
from  Philadelphia,2  that  the  only  prospect  at  that  time  was  to  buy 
the  steam  packet  Charleston,  which  had  been  built  eighteen  months 
before  at  a  cost  of  $117,000.  She  could  be  had  for  $120,000, 
payable  in  five  years  with  ten  per  cent  interest,  and  could  be  so 
altered  as  to  make  her  an  available  naval  ship.  On  November  3, 
1848,  General  Hamilton,  \vho  was  the  regularly  appointed  consul 
for  the  Republic  of  Texas,  in  Charleston,  addressed  a  lengthy  com- 
munication to  the  secretary  of  the  navy,3  in  regard  to  the  pur^ 
chase  of  this  vessel.  He  said  that  while  in  England  he  had  had 
the  good  fortune  to  induce  his  friend  James  Holford,  Esq.,  of 
London,  to  advance  the  money  necessary  for  her  purchase  and 
outfit;  but  Hamilton  said: 

As  Mr.  Holford  is  not  a  citizen,  the  title  had  to  be  taken  for 
the  boat  in  my  name,  and  so  it  will  continue  until  she  gets  out 

'Baudin  to  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  Galveston,  May  13,  1839,  in  an  un- 
identified newspaper  clipping. 

2ffouse  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  212. 
3IUd.,  214-216. 


72  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

to  Texas,  and  a  regular  transfer  is  made  of  her  to  your  Govern- 
ment. ...  As  Mr.  Holford  has  acted  with  the  utmost  liberality 
and  confidence,,  I  trust  your  Government  will  have  passed,  in 
secret  session  forthwith,  a  resolution  confirming  Messrs.  Burnley 
and  Williams'  contract  with  me,  as  the  agent  of  this  gentleman.1 

Agreeable  to  this  request,  an  act  was  passed  sanctioning  the 
contract  for  the  Charleston,  afterwards  known  as  the  Zavala,  for 
the  price  of  $120,000.2  This  vessel  was,  therefore,  the  first  one 
of  the  new  navy.  Its  final  cost,  as  later  altered  and  equipped,  was 
much  beyond  the  original  contract  price.  But  in  this,  as  in  other 
matters,  the  financial  records  of  the  navy  are  so  tangled  and 
obscure  as  to  render  details  impossible.  It  would  be  alike  tedious 
and  unprofitable  to  attempt  to  unravel  them.  Indeed,  the  secre- 
tary of  the  navy,  in  1840,  confessed  the  task  too  heavy  for  him- 
self3 

Soon  after  the  Zavala  had  been  arranged  for,  Mr.  Williams  was 
successful  in  concluding  a  contract,  on  November  13,  1838,  with 
Frederick  Dawson,  of  Baltimore,  for  one  ship,  two  brigs,  and  three 
schooners  to  be  fully  armed,  furnished  with  provisions  and  muni- 
tions, and  delivered  in  the  port  of  Galveston.4  For  this  it  was 
agreed  that, 

the  bonds  of  the  Government  of  Texas,  made  and  executed  by 
the  Commissioners  for  the  Loan,  shall  be  executed  and  signed  and 
deposited  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  of  Pennsylvania,  or 
the  Girard  Bank  at  Philadelphia,  ...  for  five  hundred  and 
sixty  thousand  dollars,  there  to  remain  ...  as  security 
.  .  .  for  the  space  of  twelve  calendar  months,  which  bonds  are 
to  bear  ...  a  rate  of  interest  of  ten  per  cent  per  annum, 
0  .  .  which  bonds  can  be  redeemed  at  the  end  of  twelve  months, 

Hamilton  to  Secretary  of  Navy,  November  3,  1838,  in  House  Journal,  5th 
Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  214-216. 
"Gouge,   Fiscal  History  of  Texas,   93. 

'Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Report  of  November  4,  1840,  in  House  Journal, 
5th  Tex,  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  187;  see  also  Gouge,  Fiscal  History  of 
Texas,  93,  94,  198-199,  206,  305. 

4For  the  contract  with  Dawson  see  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  Appendix,  202-204.  See  also  Yoakum,  II,  243;  Gouge,  Fiscal  History 
of  Texas,  94;  and  Report  of  Special  Committee  to  the  Senate,  January  22, 
1854.  Dawson  turned  his  interest  over  to  S.  Chott  and  Whitney;  these  two 
gentlemen,  in  a  lengthy  letter  addressed  to  the  government  of  Texas,  Octo- 
ber 9,  1851,  complained  bitterly  of  the  effort  made  to  scale  the  bonds,  and 
their  arguments  seem  unanswerable.  See  Gouge,  Fiscal  History  of  Texas, 
198-199. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  73 

by  the  payment  of  the  two  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars, 
and  the  ten  per  cent  which  shall  ha.ve  accrued  ...  in  Gold 
or  Silver.  ...  If  the  Government  of  Texas  shall  prefer  to 
instruct  the  Loan  Commissioners  to  issue,  or  shall  itself  issue 
sterling  bonds  for  the  sum  of  five  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
dollars  at  any  time  prior  to  the  first  day  of  February  next,  he  will 
receive  them  in  full  liquidation,  and  payment  of  the  debt  hereby 
contracted,  and  in  lieu  of  the  bonds  heretofore  mentioned. 

On  receiving  the  intelligence  that  the  navy  had  been  contracted 
for,  the  Texas  government,  on  January  26,  passed  an  act  which 
declared  that,  whereas  the  agent  of  the  Eepublic  had  made  a  con- 
tract for  the  purchase  of  one  ship  of  eighteen  guns,  two  brigs  of 
twelve  guns  each,  and  three  schooners  of  six  guns  each,  and, 

whereas  it  has  become  indispensably  necessary,  in  order  to  prepare 
and  keep  in  service  the  said  vessels,  as  well  for  the  protection  of 
the  coasts  and  harbors  of  Texas,  as  for  the  protection  of  the  com- 
merce thereof,  that  an  appropriation  be  made  of  the  sum  required 
for  that  object.  Wherefore,  be  it  enacted,  .  .  .  That  the  sum 
of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  in  the  promissory  notes 
of  the  Government  be,  and  the  sum  is  hereby  appropriated  for  the 
naval  service  for  the  year  1839.  .  .  .* 

The  navy  thus  contracted  for,  including  the  Zavala,  and  the  ap- 
propriation just  mentioned,  cost  the  Texan  government  more  than 
$800,000.2 

Mr.  Williams,  having  now  accomplished  the  task  he  had  been 
entrusted  with,  returned  to  Texas.  That  his  services  were  appre- 
ciated by  his  countrymen,  we  note  in  a  resolution  offered  in  con- 
gress8 tendering  him  a  resolution  of  thanks  "for  the  energy  which 
he  has  rendered  in  procuring  a  navy."  It  will  be  recalled  th^ 
while  he  was  connected  with  the  firm  of  McKinney  and  Williams 
he  had  been  largely  instrumental  in  securing  the  first  navy  of 
Texas.  His  talent  lay  in  his  ability  to  finance  such  matters,  and 
later  in  life  we  see  him  the  first  banker  of  Texas.  He  knew  noth- 


l,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  129-130.  Gouge,  Fiscal  History  of  Texas,  93, 
and  Bancroft,  II,  317,  say  that  this  appropriation  of  $250,000  was  made  to 
pay  for  the  ships  contracted  for;  they  are  of  course,  mistaken,  as  the 
language  of  the  act  is  clear. 

Secretary  of  the  navy,  Report  of  November  8,  1839,  cited  in  Yoakum, 
II.  272;  Bancroft,  II,  351. 

Senate  Journal,  3d  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  72.  The  resolution  was  dated 
December  14,  1838. 


74  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

ing  of  naval  construction,  and  the  republic  now  needed  a  man  at 
Baltimore  to  see  that  the  contract  was  carried  out  according  to 
specifications.  A  man  in  every  respect  qualified  for  this  important 
service  was  found  in  John  G.  Tod,  who  had  resigned  a  commission 
in  the  United  States  navy  to  connect  himself  with  the  young  re- 
public.1 Before  entering  upon  the  work,  he  had,  at  the  request  of 
the  secretary  of  the  navy,  drawn  up  a  report  upon  the  establish- 
ment of  a  navy  yard,  and  in  April,  1838,  had  been  vested  with 
powers  to  examine  into  and  report  on  all  matters  connected  with 
the  naval  interests.  On  June  10,  1838,  he  was  ordered  to  the 
United  States  by  President  Houston  upon  that  mission.  He  fitted 
out  the  steamer  Charleston  and  returned  with  her  to  Galveston, 
in  March,  1839,  where  her  name  and  flag  were  changed,  and  she 

xJohn  G.  Tod  was  born  in  Kentucky.  Leaving  Lexington  when  seventeen 
years  of  age,  he  proceeded  down  the  Mississippi  on  a  flatboat  to  New 
Orleans,  and  enlisted  in  the  Mexican  Navy  as  a  midshipman,  under  Admiral 
Mina.  Two  years  later,  through  the  influence  of  Henry  Clay,  he  was  ap- 
pointed a  midshipman  in  the  United  States  navy,  and  transferred  to  that 
service  in  which  he  rose  to  more  important  grades. — C.  W.  Raines,  Year 
Book  of  Texas,  1901,  p.  402. 

Mr.  Tod  entered  the  Texas  navy  in  1837,  and,  as  the  following  letter 
(copied  from  a  facsimile  of  the  original)  indicates,  apparently  had  some 
difficulty  in  convincing  the  secretary  of  the  navy  of  his  merits: 

Houston,  May  25,  1837. 
Hon.  W.  G.  Hill. 

Sir, — I  take  the  liberty  of  laying  the  enclosed  letters  before  you  as  a 
further  introduction  to  your  friendly  enfluence  in  my  behalf. 

They  will  show  you  how  I  stand  in  civil  life  with  men  of  eminance  in  the 
United  States — who  are  not  likely  to  confer  their  friendship  or  esteem 
upon  any  man  except  for  his  individual  worth  as  a  gentleman;  more  espe- 
cially,, when  the  difference  of  rank  betwen  us  as  public  men  is  taken  into 
consideration. 

.The  Hon.  James  Harlan  is  from  Kentucky  and  has  known  me  from  my 
esKaest  years.  Commodores  Barren  and  Bolton  are  at  the  head  of  the 
Navy.  Maj.  Graham  is  a  distinguished  officer  of  the  U.  S.  Army.  The  first 
clause  of  his  letter  will  inform  you  how  I  stand  with  my  acquaintances  in 
the  U.  S.  Navy. 

I  regret  that  the  present  state  of  affairs  should  make  it  necessary  for  me 
(to  succeed  in  my  object)  to  trouble  you  and  other  gentlemen  upon  a  sub- 
ject that  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Navy  alone  appears  to  view  in  rather 
an  indifferent  light.  If  I  obtain  my  commission,  it  will  be  my  pride  to  do 
my  duty  in  every  situation  that  my  country  places  me.  My  greatest  honor 
to  prove  myself  worthy  of  the  interest  shown  by  my  friends.  My  glory  in 
defending  the  rights  and  advancing  the  liberties  of  our  common  country. 

Very  respectfully, 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Sir,  your  ob.  Servt, 

JNO.  G.  TOD 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  75 

was  commissioned  as  the  Zavala.1  In  accordance  with  the  Dawson 
contract,  on  June  27,  1839,  the  schooner  San  Jacinto  was  deliv- 
ered; on  August  7,  the  schooner  San  Antonio;  on  August  31,  the 
schooner  San  Bernard;  and,  on  October  18,  the  brig  Colorado.2 
A  corvette  and  a  brig  were  yet  wanting  to  complete  the  contract, 
but  they  were  confidently  expected  by  the  end  of  the  year.3  They 
were  in  fact  delivered,  one  in  January,  and  the  other  in  April, 
1840.  The  following  account  appeared  in  a  current  newspaper:4 

Texian  Navy. — The  following  list  of  vessels  constitute  the  pres- 
ent naval  force  of  Texas.  As  there  are  a  number  of  officers  of 
that  service  who  were  officers  of  our  navy,  these  details  may  be 
interesting  to  many  of  the  readers  of  the  Chronicle. 

Steamer  Zavalla — An  efficient  and  well  appointed  vessel. 

Sloop  Trinity — 600  tons,  carries  20  24  pounders,  medium  guns. 
.g  .  j  Colorado  (  400  tons,  carries  each  16  18  pounder 

(  Galveston         )       medium  guns. 
(  San  Jacinto     i 

Schooners   \  San  Bernard   V  17°  tons>  each  carrying  7  12  pound- 
(  San  Antone     )  ers>  and  l  lonS  eighteen,  on  a  pivot. 

Brig  Potomac — Eeceiving  vessel. 

These  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  the  steamer  and  receiving 
vessel,  were  built,  equipped,  and  provisioned  under  the  immediate 
superintendence  of  John  G.  Tod,  Esq.,  Texan  Naval  Agent  of  the 
United  States,  a  gentleman  well  and  favorably  known  in  this  coun- 
try, having  at  an  early  period  in  his  life  held  an  honorable  place  in 
our  navy. 

The  secretary  of  the  navy  in  his  report5  of  1840  said : 

Mr.  Dawson  has  delivered  the  brig  and  the  sloop-of-war 
then  due ;  and  everything  else  appertaining  to  this  contract  has  been 
complied  with  in  the  most  generous  and  liberal  manner,  ^e 
brig  and  sloop-of-war,  like  all  the  other  vessels,  have  been  con- 
structed on  a  much  more  commodious  scale  than  the  contract  re- 

*As  an  instance  of  the  carelessness  of  the  historians  of  Texas  it  may  be 
mentioned  that  Yoakum  (II,  271),  Morphis  (419),  and  Brown  (II,  128), 
each  represents  the  Charleston  and  the  Zavala  as  two  separate  vessels. 
That  such  an  error  should  have  been  made  by  Yoakum,  who  used  the  docu- 
ments, is  strange;  Morphis  and  Brown,  no  doubt,  followed  Yoakum's  state- 
ment without  consulting  the  sources. 

2In  1840  the  name  of  the  Colorado  was  changed  to  the  Archer. 

"Secretary  of  the  navy,  Report  of  November  8,  1839;  Yoakum,  II,  271. 

4An  unidentified  newspaper  clipping,  containing  matter  copied  from  an 
issue  of  the  Army  and  Navy  Chronicle  of  date  not  indicated. 

5In  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  185-196. 


76  Measures  to  Procure  a  Second  Navy. 

quired,  and  have  been  furnished  in  a  more  suitable  manner  than 
that  for  which  the  contractors  were  obligated.  The  brig,  which 
was  the  last  vessel  received  on  the  contract,  was  delivered  at  Gal- 
veston  with  the  naval  equipments  belonging  to  her,  and  the  other 
vessels,  on  the  25th  April  1840,1 — the  ship  on  the  5th  January 
previous.  .  .  . 

This  officer2  is  entitled  to  great  credit  for  the  management  and 
system  shown  in  his  operations.  His  attention  to  the  complicated 
duties  entrusted  to  him  in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  his  con- 
duct in  direct  connection  with  this  Department,  has  always  been 
faithful  and  laborious,  and  meets  my  cordial  approbation. 

Captain  Tod  wrote  a  very  appreciative  letter  of  thanks  to  Daw- 
son,3  which  received  a  suitable  reply.  Captain  Tod  said  in  part : 

The  last  vessel  included  in  the  contract  entered  into  by  yourself 
on  one  part,  and  the  Eepublic  of  Texas  of  the  other  part,  having 
received  from  me  the  certificate  approving  of  the  same,  I  feel  it 
a  duty  as  well  as  a  pleasure  to  express  to  you  the  satisfaction  I 
have  in  testifying  to  the  very  creditable  and  liberal  manner  in 
which  the  contract  has  been  fulfilled  on  your  part. 

I  will  not  indulge  in  any  useless  expressions  of  my  opinion  of 
these  vessels,  they  speak  for  themselves,  and  many  persons  of 
acknowledged  judgment  in  naval  architecture,  have  pronounced 
them  equal  to  any  that  have  ever  sailed  from  this  port,  in  beauty 
of  mode],  strength  and  duribility  of  materials  and  finished  speci- 
mens of  workmanship.  .  .  . 

John  G.  Tod, 
Naval  Agent  of  Texas  to  the  U.  S. 

On  the  return  of  Captain  Tod  to  Galveston,  June  3,  1840,  he 
was  invited  to  partake  of  a  public  dinner  tendered  him  by  the 
citizens  of  Galveston  at  the  Tremont  House.  The  committee  on 
invitation  were  M.  B.  Menard,  P.  J.  Menard,  James  Love,  Levi 
Jones,  and  Thomas  F.  McKinney.  From  this  he  excused  himself 
on  the  plea  of  pressing  business,  but  thanked  them  for  their  ap- 
preciation of  his  services,  declaring  that, 

The  greatest  happiness  a  public  servant  has  in  this  life,  is  the 
satisfaction  of  feeling  that  he  has  been  faithful  and  conscientious 
in  the  discharge  of  such  duties  as  may  have  been  entrusted  to  him. 

irrhese  two  vessels  were  the  Austin  and  the  Wharton.  The  latter  had 
formerly  been  the  Dolphin. 

2Captain  John  G.  Tod. 

"Tod  to  Dawson,  March  19,  1840,  in  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  Appendix,  199. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  77 

If  this  pleasure  can  be  enhanced,  it  is  by  the  assurance  that  his 
humble  efforts  in  behalf  of  his  country's  interest  meet  the  appro- 
bation of  his  fellow  citizens.1 

Captain  Tod's  last  letter  as  naval  agent,  among  other  matters, 
highly  compliments  "H.  H.  Williams,  our  consul  in  Baltimore, 
to  whom  was  entrusted  the  purchase  of  our  supplies  under  my 
direction/7  and  acknowledges  at  the  same  time  his  indebtedness 
to  Commodores  Barren  and  Warrington,  of  the  United  States 
navy,  and  to  Francis  Grice,  naval  constructor  of  the  Norfolk  dock- 
yards, "for  much  useful  information  imparted  to  me  by  these  gen- 
tlemen."2 

On  June  24,  1840,  Captain  Tod  was  placed  in  command  of  the 
naval  station  at  Galveston. 

X.   EARLY  TROUBLES  OF  THE  NEW  NAVY. 

By  the  end  of  April,  1840,  the  make-up  of  the  second  navy  was 
completed.  It  consisted  of  the  Potomac,  Zavala,  Austin,  Wharton, 
Archer,  San  Bernard,  San  Jacinto,  and  San  Antonio.  The  Zavala, 
formerly  the  Charleston,  was  named  for  Lorenzo  de  Zavala;  the 
Atistin,  for  Stephen  P.  Austin;  the  Wharton,  formerly  the  Dolphin, 
for  the  Wharton  brothers, — William  H.  and  John  A.; — and  the 
Archer,  formerly  the  Colorado,  for  Dr.  Branch  T.  Archer.  Besides 
these  vessels  references  are  found  to  the  Trinity?  the  Galveston* 
the  Houston?  the  Merchant,6  the  Texas,1  the  Asp,8  and  the  Brazos. 
The  first  two  were  apparently  a  part  of  the  Dawson  contract,  and 
doubtless  became  incorporated  in  the  fleet  under  changed  names; 
the  Houston  seems  to  have  been  a  Yucatan  auxiliary,  temporarily 

*Tod  to  Galveston  Gentlemen,  Juen  4,  1840,  in  Tennison's  Journal. 

*House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,   1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  198. 

3An  unidentified  newspaper  clipping,  with  matter  copied  from  an  issue  of 
the  Army  and  Navy  Chronicle  of  date  not  indicated. 

*Ibid. 

"Jones,  Republic  of  Texas,  194. 

"Moore,   To  the  People  of  Texas,  86. 

Mournal  of  Midshipman  James  L.  Mabry  in  Galveston  News,  January  9, 
16,  23,  1893.  This  Journal,  together  with  the  Ledger  and  Ration  Book  of 
the  Texas  Navy  are  the  property  of  Mrs.  R.  W.  Shaw,  of  Galveston,  daughter 
of  Captain  James  G.  Hurd,  formerly  first  lieutenant  of  the  Brutus,  and 
granddaughter  of  Captain  Norman  Hurd,  purser  in  the  Texas  navy. 

8Ibid. 


78  Early  Troubles  of  the  New  Navy. 

acting  with  the  Texans;  and  the  Merchant  was  the  private  prop- 
erty of  E.  W.  Moore.  Of  the  other  vessels  mentioned  nothing 
further  is  known. 

This  brings  us  to  the  personnel  of  the  new  navy,  and  we  will 
now  introduce  the  officers,  renewing  old  acquaintances  and  form- 
ing new  ones.  The  man  that  stands  out  pre-eminently  for  his  in- 
dividuality, as  well  as  high  position  in  the  navy,  is  Commodore 
Edwin  Ward  Moore.  Born  in  June,  1810,  at  Alexandria,  Virginia, 
where  he  received  his  education,  he  entered  the  United  States  navy 
as  a  midshipman,  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  and  remained  in  the 
service  for  nearly  fifteen  years.1  In  a  letter  written  in  1904, 
George  F.  Fuller,  one  of  his  midshipmen  in  the  Texas  navy,  speaks 
of  him  as  about  5  feet  8  inches  in  height,  of  fair  complexion,  blue 
eyes,  light  brown  hair,  and  stocky  build.  He  was  genial,  pleasant, 
and  universally  liked;  a  thorough  seaman  and  a  splendid  officer.2 
In  1839  the  prospect  of  an  adventurous  and  active  career  in  the 
Texas  navy  caused  him  to  resign  his  commission  as  lieutenant  on 
the  United  States  sloop  Boston,3  and  offer  his  services  to  Texas. 
He  was  appointed  post-captain  and  was  generally  addressed  by  the 
title  of  Commodore,  both  by  the  public  and  by  the  secretary  of 
the  navy  in  his  official  communications.  He  had  command  of  the 
entire  Texas  navy  from  the  beginning  of  his  service.  Strange, 
however,  as  it  may  seem,  no  commission  was  issued  to  him,  or  the 
officers  under  him,  until  three  years  after  they  had  entered  the 
Texan  service.  In  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  war  and  marine 
July  5,  1842,  he  complained  of  this  in  the  following  terms: 

I  beg  leave  also  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Department  to  the 
fact  that  not  an  officer  in  the*  Navy  has  a  commission,  a  circum- 
uance  unprecedented  in  the  annals  of  history,  that  a  Government 
should  have  for  three  years,  their  vessels  of  war  on  the  high  seas, 
visiting  foreign  ports,  and  capturing  the  enemy's  vessels,  without 
a  commission  even  in  the  possession  of  the  commander  of  the  Navy.4 

This  letter  seems  to  have  had  the  effect  that  Commodore  Moore 
desired,  for  two  weeks  later  he  received  his  commission,  as  did 

'Till  July  16,  1839.  Cong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  1084; 
Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  10. 

2Fuller  to  Dienst,  October  27,  1904,  in  Dienst  Col.  Docs. 

8Thrall,  592. 

*Moore  to  Hockley,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  79. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  79 

also  the  officers  serving  under  him.  These  commissions  were  con- 
firmed by  the  senate  on  July  20,  1842.  Commodore  Moore's  com- 
mission entitled  him,  ''Post  Captain  Commanding,"  and  was  ante- 
dated April  21,  1839,  some  time  before  his  resignation  from  the 
United  States  navy. 

The  first  difficulty  encountered  by  the  new  navy  was  to  obtain 
sufficient  sailors  and  marines  to  man  the  ships.1  For  this  purpose 
the  San  Antonio  was,  in  November,  1839,  at  New  Orleans,  on  re- 
cruiting service.2  At  the  same  time  the  secretary  of  the  navy  or- 
dered the  Zavala  to  New  Orleans  for  refitting.  Captain  A.  C. 
Hinton  of  the  Zavala  was  instructed  not  to  allow  his  expenditure 
to  exceed  $9000,  including  $3200  for  the  enlistment  of  sailors  and 
marines.3  He  went,  however,  considerably  beyond  the  modest 
limit  set  by  the  department,  incurred  a  severe  reprimand  therefor 
from  the  secretary,  and  was  ordered  to  return  to  Galveston.  The 
reproof  administered  to  him  was  in  part  as  follows: 

You  appear  to  have  forgotten  the  very  first  principle  of  naval 
discipline,  to  wit:  that  the  first  duty  of  an  officer,  as  well  as  a 
seaman,  consists  in  obey  ing  orders.  If  you  have  so  far  transcended 
yours,  as  to  purchase  anything  for  which  you  can  not  show  definite 
orders,  be  assured  that  you  will  be  held  responsible;  and  you  fur- 
thermore are  strictly  forbidden  from  incurring,  under  any  pre- 
text whatever,  any  liabilities  against  the  Government  for  repairs. 
.  .  .  You  will  .  .  .  return  as  soon  as  possible  to  Galveston,  and 
report  immediately  to  this  Department.4 

In  reporting  the  matter  to  President  Lamar  the  secretary  used 
a  different  tone.  He  said  that,  though  Hinton  had  exceeeded  his 
allowance  by  nearly  twelve  thousand  dollars,  yet 

on  the  return  of  the  Zavala  to  Galveston,  her  natural  efficiei% 
was  found  to  be  very  much  increased,  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in 

'In  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the  United  States  government  against 
Moore  himself  on  the  charge  of  illegal  recruiting  activity  in  New  York 
Harbor  in  the  winter  of  1839-40,  see  Deposition  of  Hunter.  December  30, 
1839;  Forsyth  to  Dunlap,  January  15,  1840;  Dunlap  to  Forsyth,  January 
16,  1840 — all  in  Annual  Report  American  Historical  Association  for  1907, 
Volume  II. — EDITOB  QUARTERLY. 

2Moore  to  Hinton,  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st.  Sess.,  Appendix, 
223-224. 

3House  Journal,   5th   Tex.    Cong.,    1st   Sess.,   Appendix,   221-222. 

*Cooke  to  Hinton,  December  21,  1839,  in  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong., 
1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  238-239. 


80  Early  Troubles  of  the  New  Navy. 

saying,  that  the  unauthorized  repairs  were  essentially  needed,  and 
they  would  have  been  suggested  by  the  proper  authority,  except 
for  the  consciousness  of  inability  to  pay  for  them.1 

The  President  considered  the  breach  of  discipline  as  serious 
enough  to  warrant  the  withdrawal  of  Hinton's  commission.  Hin- 
ton  appealed  to  congress,  and  a  joint  resolution  was  passed,2  order- 
ing the  secretary  of  the  navy  to  organize  a  court-martial  for  the 
trial  of  Hinton,  and  declaring  that  in  future  no  officer  should  be 
deprived  of  his  commission  except  by  sentence  of  such  a  court. 
The  verdict  of  the  court-martial  was  favorable  to  Hinton,  and 
congress  passed  another  joint  resolution  acquitting  him  "of  any 
act  of  misconduct  reflecting  upon  him  as  an  officer  or  gentleman 
whilst  a  commander  in  the  Navy  of  this  Kepublic."3 

The  Zavala,  on  her  return  to  Galveston,  had  brought  a  consid- 
erable number  of  men  to  complete  the  equipment  of  the  other  ves- 
sels. For  a  while  it  seemed  as  if  this  act,  and  all  the  cost  of  pro- 
visioning and  officering  the  new  navy  were  to  be  in  vain.  The  law- 
makers of  Texas,  in  the  mood  of  retrenching  and  economizing, 
were  about  to  sacrifice  an  outlay  of  one  million  dollars,  in  order 
to  save  a  few  thousands.  Without  warning,  or  ascribing  any  cause 
for  its  action,  congress  passed  a  law  which  was  approved  on  Feb- 
ruary 5,  1840,  requiring  the  president  to  retire  from  the  service 
temporarily  all  the  fleet  except  such  schooners  as  were  needed  for 
revenue  purposes,  and  to  retain  only  a  sufficient  number  of  officers 
and  men  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  act.  Section  4,  how- 
ever, provided  that,  "should  Mexico  make  any  hostile  demonstra- 
tions upon  the  Gulf,  the  President  may  order  any  number  of  ves- 
sels into  active  service,  that  he  may  deem  necessary  for  the  public 


That  the  President  was  not  in  sympathy  with  this  act  can  be 
clearly  seen  in  reading  his  message  of  November,  1840.  He  prob- 
ably acquiesced  in  it  with  the  intention  of  availing  himself  of  the 
discretionary  power  conferred  by  Section  4.  At  any  rate,  he  did 

Secretary  of  the  navy.  Report  of  November  4,  1840,  House  Journal,  5th 
Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  185-196. 

2Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  609. 

'The  resolution  was  approved  January  29,  1842.  It  does  not  appear  in 
Gammel's  Laws,  but  the  enrolled  copy  of  the  original  may  be  found  in  the 
Records  of  the  State  Department  (Texas). 

4Grammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  364. 


Tk*  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  81 

not  execute  the  act,  and  concerning  his  reasons  for  not  doing  so, 
spoke  as  follows:1 

The  act  of  the  last  session  of  congress  providing  for  the  laying 
up  iu  ordinary  the  principal  portion  of  the  naval  forces  of  the 
country,  has  not  been  carried  into  effect.  Before  the  necessary 
preparations  could  be  made  for  doing  so,  circumstances  transpired, 
\\  inch  in  the  opinion  of  the  executive,  involved  potentially  the 
contingency  contemplated  in  the  fourth  section  of  that  act,  and 
induced  him  to  defer  the  withdrawal  ot  our  gallant  flag  from  the 
gulf.  It  was  confidently  asserted  in  the  papers  of  the  United 
States,  and  as  confidently  believed  heie,  that  the  Mexican  govern- 
ment had  made  a  contract  in  Europe  for  the  purchase  of  several 
vessels  of  war,  and  that  she  had  actually  procured  an  armed  steam 
ship  from  a  commercial  house  in  England,  with  a  view  of  making 
a  descent  upon  the  coast  of  Texas,  and  of  cutting  oil  our  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations;  and  during  the  prevalence  of  that 
opinion,  the  executive  would  have  been  violating  the  evident  in- 
tention and  spirit  of  the  act  of  congress,  instead  of  carrying  it 
into  effect,  had  he  caused  the  seamen  already  in  the  service  to  be 
disbanded,  and  the  vessels  to  be  laid  up  in  ordinary.  Other  events, 
also,  occurred  about  the  same  time,  and  conspired  with  those  con- 
siderations to  dissuade  me  from  dismantling  a  navy  which  had 
been  equipped  at  a  great  expense,  and  which  was  manned  and 
officered  in  a  style  of  gallantry  and  efficiency  inferior  to  none 
other  of  similar  magnitude.  Yucatan  and  Tabasco,  lately  forming 
a  part  of  the  confederate  states  of  Mexico,  wearied  of  the  oppres- 
sions that  followed  the  overthrow  of  the  federal  system  in  that 
republic,  seceded  from  the  central  government,  and  uniting  to- 
gether pronounced  their  determination  to  be  free.  Similarity  of 
circumstances  and  design  naturally  creates  a  sympathy  of  feeling, 
and  would  prompt  this  government  to  regard  with  peculiar  in- 
terest the  efforts  of  the  citizens  of  the  southern  provinces  to  do 
precisely  what  we  had  so  recently  accomplished.  But  considera^ 
tions  of  a  higher  character  suggested  the  propriety  of  making  a 
demonstration  of  our  naval  power  on  the  coast  of  the  new  republic. 
It  was  expected  to  ascertain  from  the  authorities  established  there 
in  what  relation  this  government  should  regard  them,  and  whether 
their  secession  from  Mexico  would  terminate  their  belligerent  con- 
dition towards  Texas.  ...  It  was  considered  advisable  to 
communicate  to  the  authorities  our  friendly  dispositions,  and  to 
convey  them  with  such  a  palpable  exhibition  of  our  power  as  would 
render  them  efficacious  and  permanent;  and  I  am  gratified  to  re- 
mark that  these  professions  were  readily  and  kindly  received,  and 
cordially  reciprocated  by  the  new  government. 

*See  Home  Journal.  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sees.,  20-22. 


82  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  1840-1841. 

Under  these  various  circumstances,  I  have  considered  it  my 
duty  to  keep  the  Navy  at  sea  for  a  short  period.  But  I  was  con- 
strained by  a  sense  of  justice  and  regard  to  the  sacred  faith  of 
the  country  to  abstain  from  making  captures  of  Mexican  property, 
while  our  accredited  agents  were  engaged  in  Mexico  in  a  nego- 
tiation for  peace  with  that  Government.  The  naval  equipments 
of  a  country,  and  especially  of  this  country,  are  essentially  dif- 
ferent to  the  facility  of  organization  from  the  military  power. 
Competent  officers  and  soldiers  to  constitute  an  army,  may  at  any 
time  be  selected  from  the  body  of  the  population,  but  seamen  and 
efficient  naval  officers  are  not  to  be  found  among  a  rural  people, 
they  belong  to  the  element  on  which  they  serve,  and  are  nurtured 
only  on  the  ocean  waves.  To  have  disbanded  the  accomplished 
and  gallant  officers  who  have  embarked  in  our  naval  service,  at 
the  moment  when  we  had  reason  to  believe  our  enemy  was  pre- 
paring a  naval  armament  for  our  coast,  would,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  executive,  have  not  only  been  indiscreet  and  impolitic,  but 
would,  as  he  believes,  have  been  contrary  to  the  true  intention  and 
meaning  of  congress,  as  expressed  in  the  act  of  the  last  session. 
It  is  true  it  might  have  saved  us  some  expenditure,  but  it  is 
equally  true,  that  it  might  have  involved  the  country  in  great 
disaster,  and  an  irreparable  loss  of  reputation. 

The  information  afforded  by  this  message  is  sufficient  warrant 
for  its  lengthy  quotation.  We  see  that  the  navy  was  not  laid  up 
in  ordinary,1  and  that  the  officers  and  men  were  not  disbanded. 
On  the  contrary,  soon  after  the  new  fleet  was  ready  for  service  it 
was  permitted  to  have  a  trial. 

XI.       CRUISE    OF    THE    TEXAS    FLEET,    1840-1841. 

In  June  the  Texas  fleet  sailed  for  Mexico.  For  this  movement 
t^uite  a  number  of  different  causes  have  been  alleged.  According 
to  President  Lamar,  the  object  of  the  expedition  was  to  impress 
Yucatan  with  the  strength  of  Texas,  and  thus  establish  diplomatic 
relations  with  this  revolting  state.  According  to  Commodore 
Moore,  it  was  the  proclamation  of  the  Mexican  president,  declaring 
Texan  ports  in  a  state  of  blockade.  And,  according  to  the  secre- 

aEugene  C.  Barker,  in  University  of  Texas  Record,  V,  155,  says:  "Six 
months  after  Lamar  assumed  the  reins  of  government  the  delivery  of  these 
naval  vssels  began,  but  the  financial  straits  of  the  young  republic  made  it 
necessary  to  place  them  temporarily  in  ordinary.  For  this  needful  act  of 
economy  he  was  blamed."  That  the  vessels  were  not  placed  in  ordinary 
this  message  shows;  although,  of  course,  the  act  approved  by  Lamar  implied 
that  it  would  be  done. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  83 

tary  of  the  navy,  it  was  because  of  a  threatened  invasion  of  Texas 
by  Mexico,  and  the  termination  of  the  diplomatic  mission  of  the 
agent  of  Texas,  Mr.  Treat.  While  it  is  peculiar  to  see  these 
officials  disagreeing  as  to  the  chief  motive  for  such  an  expedition, 
it  is  most  likely  that  all  the  causes  they  mention  contributed  to 
the  movement  For  some  seven  months  the  naval  establishment 
had  been  getting  ready  for  such  an  expedition;  and,  while  the  act 
of  congress  had  paralyzed  the  movement  for  a  short  time,  it  was 
only  momentarily  checked.  With  the  consent  and  encouragement 
of  President  Lamar,  the  outfitting  continued.  The  most  formid- 
able fleet  Texas  ever  possessed  left  Galveston  harbor  on  June  24, 
1840,  with  Commodore  E.  W.  Moore  in  command. 

The  fleet  consisted  of  the  Austin,  carrying  twenty  guns,  the  flag- 
ship of  Commodore  Moore;  the  steamship  Zavala,  carrying  eight 
guns;  and  the  schooners,  San  Bernard,  San  Jacinto,  and  San  An- 
tonio, each  carrying  five  guns.1  The  Brig  Wharton  commanded  by 

aThe  lists  of  officers  of  the  various  ships  follow:  the  Austin,  E.  P.  Ken- 
nedy, first  lieutenant;  D.  H,  Crisp,  second  lieutenant:  J.  H.  Baker,  third 
lieutenant;  William  Seegar,  fourth  lieutenant;  C.  Cummings,  acting  mas- 
ter; J.  B.  Gardiner,  surgeon;  Norman  Hurd,  purser;  T.  W.  Sweet,  lieu- 
tenant of  marines;  C.  A.  Christman,  C.  Leay,  C.  B.  Snow,  George  F.  Fuller, 
M.  H.  Dearborne,  L.  E.  Bennett,  J.  C.  Bronough,  E.  A.  Wezman,  W.  W. 
McFarlane,  R.  H.  Clements,  midshipmen;  John  W.  Brown,  boatswain; 
John  Salter,  gunner;  William  Smith,  carpenter;  C.  Cremer,  sailmaker: 
the  Zavala,  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop,  captain;  George  Henderson,  first  lieutenant; 
W.  C.  Brashear,  second  lieutenant;  Daniel  Lloyd,  master;  T.  P.  Ander- 
son, surgeon;  W.  T.  Maury,  purser;  J.  W.  C.  Parker,  captain  of  marines; 
G.  Beatty,  chief  engineer;  R.  Bache,  captain's  clerk;  C.  Betts,  C.  C.  Cox, 
J.  E.  Barrow,  H.  (S).  Garlick,  J.  A.  Hartman,  midshipmen;  James  Grout, 
boatswain ;  T.  Howard,  gunner ;  Joseph  Auld,  carpenter :  the  San  Bernard, 
W.  S.  Williamson,  lieutenant  commanding;  George  W.  Estes,  first  lieu- 
tenant; W.  A.  Tennison,  second  lieutenant  (Ben  C.  Stuart,  in  Galveston 
News,  October  8,  1899,  has  G.  C.  Bunner,  second  lieutenant,  and  W.  A 
Tennison,  as  acting  master)  ;  Charles  B.  Snow,  R.  M.  Clarke,  surgeons; 
J.  F.  Stephens,  purser;  W.  H.  Brewster,  captain's  clerk;  C.  B.  Underbill, 
John  P.  Stoneall,  J.  B.  F.  Bernard,  L.  H.  Smith,  midshipmen;  George 
Brown,  boatswain:  the  San  Jacinto.  W.  R.  Postell,  lieutenant  commanding; 
J.  O.  Shaughnessey,  first  lieutenant;  A.  G.  Gray,  second  lieutenant;  Wil- 
liam Oliver,  acting  master;  Fletcher  Dorey,  surgeon;  Robert  Oliver, 
purser;  J.  J.  Tucker,  captain's  clerk;  C.  S.  Arcamble,  A.  Walker,  J.  0. 
Parker,  midshipmen:  the  San  Antonio,  Alex  Moore,  lieutenant  command- 
ing; Thomas  Wood,  Junior,  first  lieutenant;  A.  J.  Lewis,  second  lieuten- 
ant; A.  A.  Waite,  acting  master;  James  W.  Moore,  purser;  Hugh  A. 
Goldborough,  captain's  clerk;  James  H.  Wheeler,  E.  F.  Wells,  L.  M.  Minor, 
midshipmen;  Hugh  Schofield,  boatswain. 

The  muster  rolls  here  given  are  from  the  Tennison  Papers  (folio  352, 
pp.  1-3).  They  are  the  only  complete  rolls  I  have  been  able  to  secure.  Yet 
Tennison's  rolls  cannot  be  depended  upon  as  absolutely  accurate.  For  other 
lists  see  Ben  C.  Stuart  in  Galveston  News,  October  8,  1899. 


84  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  1840-1841. 

George  Wheelwright,  the  Archer  commanded  by  J.  Clark,  and  the 
Potomac  were  left  at  Galveston.  This  was  done,  partly  for  the 
reason  that  they  were  not  in  condition  to  sail  with  the  squadron, 
and  partly  because  they  were  needed  to  protect  Galveston  in  case 
Mexican  vessels  threatened  the  city  or  the  coast.1 

The  itinerary  and  incidents  of  this  cruise  can  be  most  briefly 
and  clearly  given  by  citing  extracts  of  the  report  of  Commodore 
E.  W.  Moore  to  the  secretary  of  the  navy  :2 

TEXAS  SLOOP-OF-WAR  AUSTIN, 

At  Sea,  August  28th,  1840. 
Latitude  25°  21'  N. :  Longitude  96°  29'  W. 

Sir:  .  .  .  22d  July  .  .  .  I  order[ed]  the  Zavala  to  make 
the  best  of  her  way  to  the  Arcos3  Islands,  touching  at  Sisal,  under 
English  colors,  and  to  leave  a  letter  for  Gen.  Anaya  from  Gen. 
Canales.4  On  the  26th  July,  the  weather  still  very  light,  in  conse- 
quence of  which,  and  my  unexpected  detention  off  the  S.  W.  Pass,  I 
thought  it  best  to  send  a  vessel  off  Point  Mariandrea  with  the 
letters  No.  1  and  2  for  Richard  Packenham,  Esq.,5  her  Britannic 
Majesty's  Minister  to  Mexico;  and  that  I  might,  in  conformity 
of  my  orders  of  20th  June,  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  feelings  of 
the  authorities  of  the  State  of  Yucatan  towards  our  Government,6 
and  be  off  the  Brazos  de  Santiago  as  near  the  time  mentioned  in 
the  same  orders  as  possible,  I  sent  the  schooner  San  Jacinto  with 

Alex  Moore  and  James  W.  Moore,  mentioned  above,  were  a  cousin  and  a 
brother  of  Commodore  E.  W.  Moore.  See  Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
70-72,  110. 

irrhe  ships  and  officers  mentioned  in  Brown's  History  of  Texas,  II,  198, 
footnote  (copied  in  full  without  credit  being  given  from  Texas  Almanac, 
1860,  pp.  165-166),  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this  squadron,  though, 
to  the  general  reader,  it  would  appear  from  the  language  used  that  they 
belonged  to  the  Texas  navy  in  1840.  Thrall,  306,  note,  says  that  the 
^olphin  (Wharton)  sailed.  There  is,  however,  abundant  evidence  to  the 
contrary. 

2Moore  to  Gooke,  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  232- 
237.  Moore's  orders  dated  June  20,  1840,  were  sealed,  and  were  to  be  opened 
at  sea.  On  or  about  this  date,  the  schooners  San  Jacinto,  San  Antonio,  and 
San  Bernard,  sailed  "for  the  west."  The  Zavala  and  the  Austin  were  to 
have  gone  to  sea  on  the  23d,  but  were  detained  by  unfavorable  weather. 
They  sailed  on  June  27,  1840.  See  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  July  1, 
1840. 

8Arcas. 

4Anaya  and  Canales  were  both  leaders  of  the  Mexican  Federalists. 

Takenham  assisted  Treat  in  presenting  his  proposition,  and  acted  as 
mediator. — Bancroft,  History  of  Texas,  II,  340. 

6This  goes  to  show  that  president  Lamar  was  correct  in  his  statement  of 
the  object  of  the  expedition. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  85 

the  letters,  and  availing  myself  of  the  usual  trade  winds,  proceeded 
with  the  San  Bernard  in  company  to  Sisal,  off  which  place  I  ar- 
rived on  the  31st  July,  and,  on  making  signal  for  a  boat,  wearing 
American  colors,  was  boarded  by  an  officer,  and  learned  that  the 
Zavala  had  passed  six  days  before;  he  informed  me  that  an  order 
had  been  received  that  day  from  Merida  (the  Capitol,)  by  the 
captain  of  the  Port,  who  had  sent  him  out,  that,  if  any  Texian 
vessel  appeared  off  the  port,  to  offer  her  every  facility, — upon 
which  1  hoisted  our  proper  colors.  ...  as  soon  as  he  left, 
filled  away  for  Campeachy,  where  1  was  informed  Gen.  Anaya 
was.  Arrived  off  Campeachy  on  the  2d  August,  and,  while  stand- 
ing in  under  our  own  colors,  we  were  met  about  eight  miles  from 
the  land  by  a  schooner  of  war,  having  on  board  Gen.  Anaya  and 
suite,  who  came  on  board. 

On  being  informed  by  the  General  that  he  had  not  received  the 
letter  sent  by  the  Zavala,  and  being  no  longer  in  doubt  as  to  the 
disposition  of  the  authorities,  from  their  trusting  a  vessel  of  war, 
mounting  five  guns,  along-side  of  this  vessel  and  the  San  Bernard, 
and,  knowing  that  the  letter  was  of  importance,  as  it  had  been 
written  by  Gen.  Canales,  after  frequent  interviews  with  his  Ex- 
cellency the  President,  I  sent  the  San  Bernard  back  to  Sisal,  with 
Gen.  Anaya's  secretary  on  board  for  it,  and  anchored.  Gen. 
Anaya  remained  on  board  until  after  dark,  and  showed  me  letters 
from  Galveston  written  sixteen  or  eighteen  days  before  I  left 
there  .  .  .  the  next  day  ...  I  had  an  interview  with 
the  Governor  elect,  Don  Santiago  Mendez.  .  .  .  He  was 
anxious  that  the  most  friendly  relations  should  be  established  at 
an  early  period,  and  assured  me  that  the  ports  of  the  State  of 
Yucatan  were  open  to  any  Texian  vessel.  .  .  . 

I  left  orders  for  the  San  Bernard  to  remain  at  Campeachy  on 
her  return  from  Sisal,  until  the  13th  inst.  .  .  . 

On  the  6th  instant  I  received  a  letter  from  Gen.  Anaya, 
.  .  .  and  the  next  day  sailed  for  Point  Mariandrea.  On  ar- 
riving off  the  Arcos1  Islands  on  the  10th,  I  found  the  Zaval& 

I  ...  the  next  day  .  .  .  sailed  for  Campeachy 
.  .  .  where  I  arrived  and  anchored  on  the  13th  inst.,  .  .  . 

The  naval  force  of  the  State  of  Yucatan  consists  of  one  small 
brig  and  two  schooners.  .  .  . 

On  the  14th  the  San  Bernard  arrived  from  Sisal,  and  the  next 
morning  we  got  under  way;  and  the  following  morning,  by  7 
o'clock,  were  off  the  Arcos  Islands;  sent  the  San  Barnard  in  to 
put  Lieut.  A.  J.  Lewis  on  board  the  Zavala,  he  having  broken  his 
leg  some  days  previous  by  falling  from  the  trunk  of  the  schooner 

1Arcas. 


86  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  18W-18J+1. 

while  giving  an  order  and  looking  aloft,     .     .     .     and  pushed  on 
to  meet  the  San  Jacinto. 

Arrived  off  point  Mariandrea  on  the  18th;  on  the  19th,  fell  in 
with  the  San  Bernard,  and  on  the  20th,  with  the  San  Jacinto, 
when  I  was  informed  by  Lieut.  Postell  that  he  had  arrived  off 
the  point  on  the  1st  inst.  ...  I  have  since  met  with  .  .  . 
Her  Britannic  Majesty's  brig  Penguin,  on  her  way  from  Vera  Cruz 
to  Tampico,  and  1  was  informed  by  her  that  it  had  been  reported 
at  Vera  Cruz  that  there  was  a  pirate  off  that  part  of  the  coast,  and 
the  brig  was  looking  out  for  her.  The  officer  appeared  much 
pleased  with  the  bold  manner  in  which  Lieut.  Postell  stood  down 
for  him,  and  I  take  this  occasion  to  state  to  the  Department  that 
he  is  much  the  most  efficient  officer  I  have  under  my  command. 

On  the  23d,  not  having  fallen  in  with  either  the  San  Antonio 
or  brig  Wharton1  which  vessels  I  had  ordered  to  meet  me  off 
Point  Mariandrea,  ...  I  determined  to  stand  down  off  Vera 
Cruz,  under  American  colors,  and  board  the  first  vessel  that  came 
out,  in  hopes  of  hearing  whether  Mr.  Treat  had  left  Mexico  or 
not,  and  at  the  same  time  have  a  look  at  their  shipping.  That 
afternoon  I  was  within  three  miles  of  the  castle  of  Juan  de 
Ulloa;  stood  off  all  night,  and  the  next  day,  in  the  afternoon,  an 
English  brig  came  out;  the  wind  being  light,  did  not  get  near  her 
until  the  next  morning,  when  she  sent  her  boat  alongside  with 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Treat,  enclosing  one  to  his  Excellency  the  Presi- 
dent, and  two  to  the  Hon.  A.  S.  Lipscomb,  Secretary  of  State. 

The  brig  was  Her  Majesty's  brig  Penguin,  and  I  learned  from 
the  officer  who  came  on  board  from  her,  that  the  Centralists  had 
no  vessel  of  war  at  Vera  Cruz;  that  the  sloop-of-war  Iguala  was 
expected  soon  from  France,  that  they  were  about  purchasing  a 
French  ship  there,  lying  in  the  harbor,  and  that  the  steamer 
Agyle  was  in  the  employment  of  the  Mexican  Government.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  I  thought  it  best  to  leave  the  San  Bernard  .  .  . 
tlf-der  the  orders  of  which  the  enclosed  is  a  copy;  and  in  order 
that  the  letters  which  I  had  in  my  possession  from  the  City  of 
Mexico  might  reach  their  destination  as  early  as  possible,  I  made 
sail  immediately,  the  San  Jacinto  in  Company,  for  Galveston ;  and 
by  the  time  we  get  in  the  latitude  of  the  Brazos  de  Santiago,  I  will 
have  finished  my  letters,  when  I  will  send  the  schooner  on  with 
them,  and  proceed  myself  to  the  Brazos,  off  which  place  I  will 
not  remain  more  than  four  days,  (unless  I  meet  additional  orders 

aThe  Wharton,  by  order  of  the  secretary  of  the  navy,  was  partly  dis- 
mantled and  placed  in  ordinary.  This  is  the  reason  she  did  not  at  this 
time  reach  the  squadron.  See  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Report  of  November  4, 
1840,  in  House  Journal,  5th  Tex.  Cong.,  Appendix,  185-196. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  87 

from  the  Department,)  when  I  will  return  with  all  dispatch  off 
Point  Mariandrea. 

My  not  having  fallen  in  with  the  San  Antonio  or  brig  Wharton 
has  placed  me  in  a  disagreeable  situation,  as,  from  the  force  of 
circumstances,  1  can  only  appear  off  the  Brazos  with  this  vessel, 
when  I  am  required  by  my  orders,  to  appear  off  that  place  with 
the  whole  squadron;  besides  I  am  behind  the  time  named,  in  con- 
sequence of  waiting  off  Point  Mariandrea,  in  the  hope  of  meeting 
the  San  Antonio,  at  all  events,  as  there  was  a  probability  of  the 
Wharton  not  getting  to  sea. 

.  .  .  C.  S.  Nash,  ordinary  seaman,  died  on  board  this  vessel 
on  the  4th  inst,  while  at  Campeachy;  his  disease  was  dropsy,  and 
he  was  transferred  from  the  San  Bernard  on  the  28th  June,  in 
order  that  he  might  be  more  comfortable.  The  San  Jacinto  also 
lost  one  man,  who  had  been  sick  some  time  and  was  very  old. 

The  Zavala  has  fully  realized  my  expectations  as  a  sea  steamer. 
She  left  New-Orleans  not  quite  two-thirds  filled  with  coal,  having 
about  1700  barrels  on  board;  and  she  can  carry  2700  barrels.  The 
coal  was  of  the  most  inferior  kind,  the  blacksmith  on  board  this 
vessel  not  being  able  to  get  a  welding  heat  on  iron  with  some  of  it 
we  got  from  here.  Filled  with  good  Pittsburgh  coal,  a  good  head 
of  steam  can  be  kept  up  on  her  for  thirty-five  days;  and,  in  the 
event  of  active  operations  on  this  coast,  it  will  be  necessary  for 
her  to  have  two  thousand  barrels  of  good  Pittsburgh  coal  as  soon 
as  it  can  reach  here,  say  about  the  25th  Sept.,  or  1st  Oct.,  at 
which  time  she  may  be  found  at  the  Arcos  Islands,  the  latitude  of 
which  is  20°  12'  N.,  and  the  latitude1  91°  57'  W.  She  adds 
greatly  to  the  efficiency  of  our  force,  particularly  on  the  coast  of 
Mexico,  where  there  is  for  so  great  a  portion  of  the  time  very 
little  wind,  unless  it  is  blowing  a  gale,  which  seldom  lasts  long. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,        Your  obedient  servent, 

[Signed]  E.  W.  MOORE, 

Captain  Commanding. 
To  the  Hon.  Louis  P.  Cooke, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Austin,  Texas. 

The  following  excerpts  are  taken  from  the  diary  of  one  of  the 
midshipmen,  and  tell  many  events  not  mentioned  by  Commodore 
Moore  in  his  dispatch.2  At  the  beginning  of  September  Com- 
modore Moore  was  at  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  del  Norte. 

longitude. 

2Diary  of  midshipman  James  L.  Mabry,  in  Galveston  News,  January  16 
and  23,  and  February  13,  1893. 


88  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  1840-1841. 

September  19,  1840:  .  .  .  stood  in  chase  of  strange  ship 
who  hoisted  Spanish  colors,  bearing  two  points  on  our  lee  bow. 
At  5:30  strange  ship  tacked  and  stood  for  us.  Beat  to  quarters 
and  spoke  her.  She  proved  the  Spanish  corvette  Gueriro,1  mount- 
ing 22  guns. 

October  4,  1840 :  From  4  to  6,,  gales  with  passing  clouds.  At  5 
made  a  vessel  with  a  signal  of  distress,  lying  on  the  reef  at  the 
north  end  of  the  island  (Labos2).  Sent  life  boat  on  shore  to  in- 
quire if  any  of  the  inhabitants  could  pilot  a  boat  out  to  her.  At 
6  the  boat  returned,  unable  to  obtain  any  information  or  assistance. 
.  .  .  Sent  life  boat  on  shore  to  build  a  fire  as  a  beacon  to  the 
vessel  in  distress.  At  9,  manned,  provisioned  and  sent  life  boat 
and  second  cutter  to  the  relief  of  the  distressed  vessel  lying  on 
the  Banquilla  reef.  The  second  cutter  returned,  not  being  able 
to  proceed  against  a  heavy  head  sea.  .  .  . 

October,  6  1840:  ...  at  3.30  the  life-boat  and  second 
cutter  returned,  bringing  the  remainder  of  the  crew,  passengers 
and  baggage.3 

October  17,  1840 :    At  1,50  standing  in  for  Tampico  bar.    .    .    . 

October  18,  1840 :  ...  at  3.30  a  sail  hove  in  sight,  stand- 
ing for  anchorage.  At  4  she  came  to  anchor  a  short  distance  ahead 
of  us.  She  proved  [to  be]  the  English  brig  of  war  Eacer.  .  .  . 

October  21,  1840 :  At  2  the  second  cutter  was  fired  at  3  times 
from  the  shore  and  very  narrowly  escaped  destruction,  the  balls 
spiking  very  close  to  her.  We  directed  a  gun  at  the  fort  and 
fired  it,  but  the  distance  was  so  great  that  it  did  not  carry.  .  .  . 

October  23,  1840 :  At  2,30,  Jas.  Garrett,  second  gunner,  died 
of  the  scurvy.  .  .  . 

October  21,*  1840:  .  .  .  S.  0.  Sawyer  fell  from,  the  fore 
top  gallant  yard  overboard  and  was  lost.  .  .  . 

November  4,  1840 :  At  1  sent  first  cutter  with  228  gallons  of 
water,  1  bag  of  coffee,  two  bags  of  flour  and  ten  boxes  of  vermicelli 
to  the  schooner  San  Jacinto,  and  the  launch  with  two  anchors  and 
.  chain.  The  schooner  was  ashore,  where  she  had  been  driven  in  a 
norther,  having  parted  one  of  her  anchors.  At  6,  sent  the  launch 
with  the  men  to  the  San  Jacinto.  At  7,  sent  the  first  cutter  to 
the  San  Jacinto  with  217  gallons  of  water.  The  captain  left  the 
ship.  At  7,30  the  captain  returned.5  At  10,  the  first  cutter  re- 
turned. .  .  . 

November  21.   1840:     .     .     .     at  3  the  city  of  Tabasco  hove 

Guerrero. 
2Lobos. 

3The  wrecked  vessel  was  the  Mexican  brig,  Segunda  Fauna. 
4Either  this  entry  is  out  of  place  in  the  original  diary,  or  it  was  meant 
for  October  24. 

5See  p.  33,  below. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  89 

in  sight,     at  3.30  came  to  with  larboard  anchor.     .     .     . 

November  23,  1840:  ...  at  11.30  General  Anaya  visi'ted 
the  ship.  .  .  . 

December  6  1840:  The  federal  brig-of-war  fired  a  salute  of 
twenty-one  guns.  At  9,40  she  ...  hoisted  the  Texian  en- 
sign at  the  fore  and  fired  a  salute  of  seventeen  guns.  At  10  we 
answered  it. 

December  11,  1840 :  ...  At  10  the  Zavala  came  alongside 
of  us  and  made  fast  to  us. 

December  13,  1840 :  At  6  called  all  hands  to  up  anchor.  Got 
under  way  and  backed  down  the  river  with  the  Zavala.  .  .  . 

December  15,  1840:  At  11,30  boarded  and  took  in  tow  the 
Mexican  schooner  Florentine.  .  .  .  At  2,30  boarded  the  Mexi- 
can schooner  Elizabeth  and  brought  her  to  under  our  stern. 

December  16,  1840 :  At  8.30  got  under  way  and  cast  off  the  two 
schooners,  giving  them  permission  to  proceed  up  the  river.  At 
5.30  came  to  anchor  off  the  town  of  Frenterrea.1 

December  17,  1840:  During  the  night,  James  Duffries,  ordi- 
nary seaman,  died  of  fever.  .  .  . 

December  22,  1840 :  at  3  p.  m.  Samuel  Edgerton,  commodore's 
steward,  died  of  yellow  fever.  .  .  . 

December  25,  1840 :  Sent  for  Dr.  Clarke  of  the  San  Bernard 
to  visit  the  sick. 

In  copying  the  log  of  -the  Austin,  Midshipman  Mabry  had  no 
occasion  to  describe  the  terrible  experience  of  the  Zavala  in  the 
storm  of  September  23.  The  following,  from  the  Tennison  Papers,2 
in  brief  language  gives  a  vivid  idea  of  the  perils  of  the  sailor : 

23d  September,  ...  we  went  to  Arcos  where  we  expected 
to  meet  the  Commodo[re]  and  obtain  a  supply  of  provisions  from 
him — but  unfortunately  he  was  not  there,  and  after  waiting  a 
week  on  half  allowance  we  went  to  Laguna  de  Terminas  to  obtain 
provision.  We  got  enough  provisions  there  by  giving  draft  on-<Aie 
Consul  in  New  Orleans  (fund  being  all  gone)  and  we  came  here! 
to  get  fuel  enough  to  carry  us  to  Galveston.  We  arrived  off  the 
bar  of  this  river  too  late  on  the  night  of  the  3d  October  to  com 
in,  and  towards  Morning  we  had  a  sever  gale,  and  sea  from  North 
east,  a  little  the  worst  many  of  us  had  even  seen — how  the  old 
Zavala  stood  it  bravely,  and  after  losing  our  rudder,  best  anchor 
and  cable,  the  main  mast  throwing  the  guns  and  about  400  eigh- 
teen pound  shot,  and  all  our  grape  and  cannister  overboard,  cut- 
ting the  salloon,  ward  room,  steerage  and  berth  deck  for  fuel,  we 

aFrontera. 

2Tennison's  Journals,  folio  350,  p.  1.  For  a  more  detailed  description 
of  the  Zavala  in  the  storm,  see  THE  QUARTERLY,  VI,  123. 


90  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  1840-1841. 

came  in  here  all  well  and  hearty  on  the  7th  October.    The  Hull  of 
the  Vessel  and  engines  being  not  at  all  hurt. 

The  last  notice  of  the  San  Antonio  that  has  been  found,  respect- 
ing this  cruise,  is  a  line  in  the  Tennison  Papers :  "The  San  An- 
tonio arrived  in  port1  Dec.  9,  1840,  with  the  rems2  of  Mr.  Treat, 
agent  from  Texas  to  Mexico.'"3 

Relative  to  the  doings  of  the  fleet  for  the  next  few  months  the 
information  is  very  meager,  but  a  contemporary  newspaper  gives 
the  following  items  :4 

Last  from  the  Fleet. 

By  the  San  Bernard,  T.  A.  Taylor  commanding,  which  came 
into  Galveston  a  few  days  since,  we  are  in  possession  of  the  last 
intelligence  from  the  fleet.  A  private  letter  has  been  shown  us, 
dated  on  board  the  Zavalla,  San  Juan  Baptista  Eiver,  Tobasco, 
Dec.  23d,  from  which  we  learn  that  this  steam  ship  is  in  com- 
plete repair,  and  ready  for  service;  that  the  whole  fleet  will  not 
probably  come  in  before  March  or  April.  Commodore  Moore,  on 
board  the  flag  ship  Austin,  was  in  the  harbor  at  Tobasco  with  the 
Zavala,  but,  in  a  few  days,  would  proceed  to  sea,  on  another  cruise. 

The  schooner  San  Jacinto  went  ashore  in  a  heavy  gale,  a  short 
time  before  the  sailing  of  the  San  Bernard.  At  the  time,  she  was 
anchored  off  the  Areas  Islands,  but  having  imprudently  ventured 
to  sea  with  but  one  anchor,  she  was  driven  by  the  gale  high  upon 
land,  a  perfect  wreck.  No  lives  were  lost,  and  we  believe  her 
guns  were  saved. 

It  is  rumored  (on  what  authority  we  have  not  learned,)  that 
the  Federal  authorities5  in  consideration  of  the  services  rendered 
by  Com.  Moore  in  reducing  a  small  town  on  the  coast,  contributed 
$25,000  towards  the  expenses  of  the  navy  during  the  expedition. 
^Gren.  Anaya  is  in  command  at  Tobasco,  and  his  forces  are  con- 
srantly  augmented  by  the  voluntary  enlistment  of  the  citizens. 
The  most  amicable  relations  exist  between  them  and  our  naval 
forces. 

Tennison  states  that,  at  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  San 
Barnard  from  Tobasco,  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Zavala,  with 
the  Austin  in  tow,  to  proceed  to  Laguna  for  a  sufficient  supply  of 

Galveston. 

"Remains. 

8Tennison's  Journal,  folio  352,  p.  3. 

^Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  January  13,  1841. 

5That  is,  Mexican  Federal  authorities. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  Ql 

fuel,  and  thence  to  Galveston.  The  Austin,  leaving  the  Zavala 
after  crossing  the  bar,  was  to  proceed  to  the  Arcos  Islands,  and 
thence  to  Galveston.  Under  date  of  February  10,  1841,  Tennison 
further  states  that  the  Austin,  on  the  cruise  referred  to  above, 
boarded  a  small  schooner,  bound  for  Vera  Cruz,  having  on  board 
the  Federal  General  Lemus,  prisoner  of  the  Centralists.  By  or- 
ders of  Commodore  Moore  he  was  released,  and  was  landed  at 
Campeachy.  Soon  afterwards  he  was  placed  in  a  responsible  posi- 
tion by  the  new  government  of  Yucatan.  On  March  18,  according 
to  Tennison,  the  San  Bernard  returned  to  Galveston.  She  had 
touched  at  Vera  Cruz,  where  her  appearance  was  by  no  means  wel- 
come to  the  natives.  Eight  boats,  with  about  seventy  men  each, 
had  prepared  to  attack  this  single  schooner  manned  by  a  crew  of 
only  twenty.  The  timely  interference,  however,  of  the  British 
sloop  Qomus  prevented  trouble.  On  this  trip  the  San  Bernard  had 
lost  her  foremast,  and  was  forced  to  stop  at  the  Arcos  Islands  for 
repairs.  The  Zavala  was  at  Laguna  on  March  1,  since  her  sup- 
plies of  fuel  and  provisions  had  not  arrived  from  New  Orleans.1 
The  following  extract  gives  a  glimpse  of  her  at  some  later  time:2 

The  steamship  Zavala  arrived  yesterday  in  five  days  from  Yuca- 
tan. She  had  on  board  $8460  in  specie,  having  received  ten  thou- 
sand dollars  in  payment  of  services  rendered  by  our  Navy  in  the 
taking  of  Tobasco,  the  balance  being  expended  in  the  payment  of 
debts  contracted  there. 

At  Yucatan  everything  was  quiet.  No  standing  army  to  make 
subordinate  the  civil  authorities  to  the  military,  as  in  many  parts 
of  Mexico.  All  kinds  of  religious  worship  was  tolerated  there. 

Arista  has  joined  Canales;  but  had  no  designs  against  Texas. 
He  seems  determined  to  overthrow  the  existing  government. 

We  are  assured  by  a  passenger  on  board  the  Zavala  that  -Je 
Navy  could,  if  permitted  to  make  captures,  not  only  defray  its 
own  expenses,  but  support  the  government.3 

^ennison's  Journal,  folio  354,  p.  1 ;  folio  372,  pp.  1-2. 

2 'Austin  City  Gazette,  April  21,  1841,  quoting  from  the  Galveston  Morning 
Herald.  No  copy  of  the  latter  paper  is  known  to  the  writer,  and  no  mention 
of  it  is  made  in  bibliographies  of  Texas  or  Louisiana  newspapers. 

3The  reader  will  recall  Lamar's  statement  that  the  officers  of  the  Texas 
navy  were  not  expected  to  make  captures  while  the  Texas  agent  was  in 
Mexico  negotiating  for  the  recognition  of  Texan  independence,  because 
Lamar  considered  that  such  a  policy  would  be  dishonorable.  Mexico,  in 
this  instance,  seems  to  have  outwitted  Texas  in  diplomacy.  She  kept  the 
Texas  agents  in  Mexico  in  suspense  as  to  her  final  decision  until  her  vessels 
arrived  from  abroad,  no  doubt  having  been  informed  by  the  Texas  agents, 


92  Cruise  of  the  Texas  Fleet,  1840-1841. 

Under  date  of  July  3,  1841,  Tennison  states  that  on  that  day 
the  S<m  Bernard  arrived,  presumably  at  Galveston,  with  Judge 
Webb  on  board.  He  says  that  Mexico  had  refused  to  treat  with 
or  to  receive  Webb  as  an  agent  to  procure  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  independence  of  Texas.1 

Of  the  Tabasco  affair,  Commodore  Moore  has  the  following 
to  say:2 

.  .  .  went  up  the  river  Tabasco,  captured  that  place  .  .  . 
levied  a  contribution  of  $25,000  with  which  supplies  were  obtained 
from  New  Orleans  to  enable  the  squadron  to  keep  at  sea  upwards 
of  ten  months  .  .  .  and  there  by  kept  the  Mexican  Navy  from 
appearing  off  the  coast  of  Texas  to  enforce  the  blockade.  .  .  . 

We  remained  in  quiet  possession  of  the  town  of  Tobasco  for 
twenty-one  days  and  had  no  shot  fired  at  us  as  we  were  leaving. 
During  this  cruise  one  Mexican  schooner  was  captured  within  five 
miles  of  Vera  Cruz,  sent  to  Galveston,  condemned  and  sold  for 
seven  thousand  dollars. 

An  item  of  interest  in  connection  with  the  capture  of  Tabasco 
is  given  by  Midshipman  C.  C.  Cox  in  his  reminiscences  :3 

But  we  had  no  fight.  The  enemy  evacuated  the  town  before  we 
reached  it — and  after  one  night's  stay  we  again  dropped  down  the 
Eiver — but  a  good  many  bags  of  silver  were  taken  on  Board  our 
vessel  at  Tobasco  and  a  portion  at  least  of  the  same  was  distrib- 
uted among  the  officers  and  men  of  the  fleet  as  prize  money.  I 
think  eight  dollars  was  the  share  I  got. 

April,  1841,  saw  the  return  of  the  Texan  vessels  to  Galveston. 
and  the  Yucatan  expedition  of  1840-1841  was  closed.  This  expe- 
dition is  in  history  frequently  confounded  with,  later  expeditions 
ta.  Yucatan.4  Historians  also  allude  to  an  alliance  between  Yuca- 

w. 

tan  and  Texas  in  1840,  but  this  alliance  was  not  consummated  in 

that,  as  a  means  of  getting  their  proposals  considered,  Texas  war  vessels 
were  under  instructions  not  to  molest  Mexican  commerce  until  their  agency 
terminated. 

^ennison's  Journal,  folio  372,  p.  3. 

2Moore,  Reply  to  the  Pamphlet  by  Commodores  Buchanan,  Dupont,  and 
Magruder,  etc.,  19. 

3THE  QUARTERLY,  VI,  124.  He  is  in  error  as  regards  "one  night's  stay." 
His  illness  at  the  time  explains  the  error. 

4Brown,  II,  198 ;  Thrall,  A  Pictorial  History  of  Texas,  306.  Thrall  states 
"They  were  placed  in  the  service  of  the  revolutionary  government  of  Yuca- 
tan," and  "sailed  24th  of  June,  1840."  See  also  University  of  Texas  Rec- 
ord, V,  155,  and  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  36. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  93 

fact  until  1841.  The  taking  of  Tabasco  was  the  result  of  an  im- 
promptu arrangement  between  Moore  and  the  officials  of  Yucatan  ; 
the  official  alliance  between  Yucatan  and  Texas,  concluded  in 
1841,  was  one  entered  into  by  the  civil  authorities  of  both  coun- 
tries, the  conditions  of  which  were  specified  in  a  document  en- 
trusted to  commissioners.  In  this  respect  it  differed  from  the 
arrangements  of  1840,  which  were  made  verbal  and  consequently 
could  be  easily  broken  at  the  caprice  of  either  party,  or  upon 
explicit  directions  to  the  commodore  commanding  the  Texas  fleet 
disapproving  of  his  actions. 

Soon  after  Commodore  Moore's  return  to  Texas  he  was  again 
sent  to  sea  for  the  purpose  of  surveying  the  coast  of  Texas.  In- 
creasing maritime  interests  rendered  this  survey  very  necessary. 
He  briefly  describes  this  labor  in  a  publication  directed  to  the 
United  States  naval  officials:1 

From  May  to  November,  1841,  the  vessels  were  overhauled  and 
the  coast  of  Texas  surveyed  by  Captain  Moore,  with  the  aid  of 
schooners  of  the  Texas  Navy;  a  chart  for  the  entire  coast  was 
made  by  him  and  published  in  New  York  by  E.  and  G.  W.  Blunt, 
and  in  England  by  the  admiralty.  It  is  the  only  correct  chart 
now  in  use  by  navigators  .  .  .  one  of  the  officers  whose  name 
is  attached  to  the  published  remonstrance  to  the  honorable  house 
of  representatives  has  been  in  service  on  the  gulf  since  it  was 
published  in  1842;  he  has  doubtless  had  occasion  to  use  it,  and  I 
can  with  confidence  call  on  him  to  attest  its  accuracy. 

The  following  item  concerning  the  survey  is  from  the  Telegraph 
and  Texas  Register? 

The  schooner  of  War,  San  Antonio,  left  Galveston  on  the  4th 
inst.  for  the  Sabine  Pass,  having  Com.  E.  W.  Moore  and  severa-J 
officers  on  board,  for  the  purpose  of  commencing  the  survey  of  the 
coast.  Col.  G.  W.  Hockley,  was  a  passenger  on  board.  We  are 
glad  to  find  this  important  work  commenced.  The  officers  of  our 
Navy  can  not  at  this  season  be  employed  to  better  advantage  than 
in  this  survey. 

They  were  actively  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  these  labors  until 
their  recall  in  October  by  President  Lamar  on  account  of  the 


,  Reply  to  the  Pamphlet  by  Commodores  Buchanan,  Dupont,  and 
Magruder,  etc.,  19. 
Muly  14,  1841. 


94  Alliance  Betiveen  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

alliance  entered  into  between  Yucatan  and  Texas,  which  we  shall 
consider  in  the  next  chapter. 

XII.      ALLIANCE  BETWEEN   TEXAS  AND  YUCATAN. 

The  idea  of  forming  an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  on  the 
part  of  Texas  and  Yucatan  against  Mexico,  was,  no  doubt, 
discussed  between  the  Texas  commanders  and  Yucatan  offi- 
cials, while  the  Texas  navy  was  in  Yucatan;  and  doubt- 
less, on  the  return  of  the  officers  from  their  cruise,  the 
sentiments  expressed  by  these  officials,  were  imparted  to 
President  Lamar.  According  to  Senator  Sam  Houston,1  the 
first  overtures  looking  to  an  alliance  were  made  by  President 
Lamar.  Houston  says: 

It  was  in  the  month  of  July  of  that  year2  that  the  Texas  navy 
was  subsidized  to  Yucatan,  an  integral  part  of  the  Eepublic  of 
Mexico.  The  then  President  of  Texas,  Mr.  Lamar,  made  a  com- 
munication to  the  Governor  of  Yucatan,  proposing  to  confederate 
with  him  to  render  aid,  and  to  receive  reciprocal  aid  from  him. 
In  conformity  to  the  invitation  originating  with  the  President  of 
Texas,  a  Minister  arrived  from  the  Government  of  Yucatan,  then 
in  a  revolutionary  state  against  Mexico,  with  proposals  to  obtain 
the  navy  of  Texas,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  a  war  against 
the  central  Government  of  Mexico.  On  the  17th  of  September,  I 
think,  the  proposition  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Badraza,3  and  ac- 
cepted through  the  Secretary  of  State  by  the  President  of  Texas. 
By  the  18th  the  matter  was  consummated,  and  directions  given 
to  the  navy  of  Texas  immediately  to  sail,  and  co-operate  in  the 
defense  of  Yucatan  against  Mexico;  or,  in  other  words  to  aid  and 
assist  in  the  rebellion.  This  was  done  without  any  authority  or 
sanction  of  the  Congress  or  Senate  of  the  Eepublic  of  Texas.  It 
vas  a  mere  act  of  grace  or  will  on  the  part  of  the  President. 

Col.  Peraza  arrived  at  Austin  on  September  11.  On  the  16th 
he  addressed  to  Samuel  A.  Roberts,  Secretary  of  State,  a  lengthy 
communication,4  the  main  points  of  which  were  that  Lamar  had 
written  the  government  of  Yucatan  that  he  was  willing  to  co- 

lCong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  1081 ;  Moore,  To  the  People 
of  Texas,  27-29;  Rej6n,  secretary  of  state  of  Yucatan,  states  that  Lamar 
did  make  overtures  July  20,  1841. 

21841. 

3Col.  Martin  F.  Peraza. 

4Anonymous  translation  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  15-17. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  95 

operate  against  the  common  enemy ;  that  Yucatan  was  threatened 
by  an  invasion  from  Mexico  which  its  navy  was  not  strong  enough 
to  resist;  that  the  case  was  too  urgent  for  Yucatan  to  wait  for  the 
assembling  of  its  congress.  Peraza  then  proceeds,  "I  will  there- 
fore merely  say  to  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  State  that  I  am 
fully  authorized  by  my  Government  to  contribute  to  the  removal 
of  any  pecuniary  obstacles  which  might  perhaps  for  the  moment 
embarrass  that  of  Texas  in  putting  her  vessels  in  action";  and  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  Yucatan  would  pay  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
the  squadron  of  three  war  vessels  to  sea  eight  thousand  dollars 
in  advance  and  eight  thousand  dollars  per  month,  so  long  as  the 
government  should  deem  it  necessary  for  the  squadron  to  remain 
in  active  service.  Any  prize  made  and  any  revenue  of  the  Mexi- 
can government  confiscated  by  Yucatan  and  Texas  was  to  be 
divided  equally  between  them  after  first  paying  the  costs  of  the 
enterprise.  On  the  next  day  Col.  Peraza  received  a  communica- 
tion1 from  the  Secretary  of  State  of  Texas,  in  which  he  says: 

When  therefore  you  tell  us  that  you  have  reason  to  apprehend 
that  the  same  despotism  which  for  a  time  waged  so  savage  and 
relentless  a  war  against  us,  is  preparing  to  attack  the  newly  es- 
tablished liberties  of  your  country,  we  can  not  hesitate  to  co- 
operate with  you  in  preparing  to  repel  the  premeditated  attack 
by  sending  such  a  portion  of  our  Naval  force  to  sea  as  may  be 
deemed  adequate  to  the  service  required  of  it. 

That  this  Government  may  derive  incidental  advantages  from 
sending  its  Navy  to  sea,  ...  is  not  denied;  but  that  these 
advantages  will  afford  a  just  equivalent  for  the  heavy  expenses  of 
keeping  our  Navy  at  sea,  and  for  the  shock  such  a  ste2  may  give 
to  our  nation's  credit  abroad ;  and  the  loss  we  may  thereby  suffer ; 
the  undersigned  apprehends,  it  is  equally  unnecessary  for  him  jp 
deny.  The  President  therefore  in  accepting  the  pecuniary  am 
offered  by  Yucatan,  on  the  terms  proposed  in  your  communication, 
towards  the  support  of  the  Navy  so  long  as  it  continues  to  co- 
operate with  that  of  Yucatan,  only  discharges  a  duty  towards  this 
Government  which  a  rigid  and  economical  expenditure  of  the 
public  money  demands.  .  .  .  The  undersigned  has  been  in- 
structed, taking  your  propositions  as  a  basis,  to  state  specifically 
the  terms  upon  which  the  President  will  feel  authorized  to  aifford 
the  Government  of  Yucatan  the  aid  which  she  demands. 

Roberts  to  Peraza,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  17-19. 
2Step. 


96  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

The  stipulations  following  are  four  in  number,  and  the  same 
as  given  in  Peraza's  letter  except  the  second,  which  reads:  "All 
captures  made  by  Texan  vessels  shall  be  taken  into  Texas  ports 
for  adjudication,  and  all  captures  taken  by  Yucatan  vessels  shall 
be  taken  into  Yucatan  ports  for  the  like  purpose/'  On  the  same 
day,  September  17,  1841,  Col.  Peraza  accepted  the  Texas  propo- 
sitions. In  a  letter  to  the  secretaary  of  state  he  says,1  being 
conformable  to  the  spirit  of  my  instructions,  they  are  sanc- 
tioned on  my  part  in  the  name  of  my  government,  which 
is  pledged  to  their  most  punctual  and  religious  observance." 
In  reply  to  this  acceptance  by  Yucatan,  the  Secretary  of  State 
addressed  a  letter  to  Col.  Peraza2  in  which  he  says  in  part : 

the  President  has  this  day  given  orders,  in  conformity  with  the 
stipulations  and  agreements  which  have  been  mutually  made  be- 
tween the  two  governments,  for  three  or  more  vessels  to  pro- 
ceed with  as  little  delay  as  possible  to  the  port  of  Sisal,  when 
it  is  expected  the  Government  of  Yucatan  will  furnish  the  Com- 
mander of  the  Squadron  with  such  information  as  will  enable 
him  to  operate  to  the  advantage  of  Yucatan.  .  .  .  It  is  hoped 
the  action  of  Commodore  Moore,  who  will  personally  command  the 
squardon,  will  be  such  as  to  give  entire  satisfaction  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Yucatan.  His  orders  have  been  made  in  strict  con- 
formity with  the  agreement  which  has  been  entered  into  between 
the  two  governments.3 

On  the  same  day,  September  18,  1841,  Commodore  Moore  re- 
ceived orders  from  the  department  of  war  and  marine  in  con- 
formity with  the  treaty  entered  into  by  Texas  and  Yucatan;  and 
he  was  informed  that  the  eight  thousand  dollars  he  would  receive 
at  New  Orleans  was  all  that  he  would  be  advanced  for  the  pro- 
\^:oning  of  the  vessels  and  recruiting  of  the  men  for  the  service. 
Another  clause  in  the  letter  is  here  given  in  full,  as  Commodore 
Moore  claimed  that  at  a  later  time  in  his  service  to  Texas  he  com- 
plied with  the  order  it  contained,  and  was  for  so  doing  outlawed, 
declared  a  pirate,  and  dishonored  by  the  Texan  executive,  Sam 
Houston : 

'Peraza  to  Roberts,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  19-20. 

"Roberts  to  Pereza,  September  18,  1841,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of 
Texas,  20-21. 

8Those  desiring  to  go  mere  fully  into  a  study  of  the  alliance  may  con- 
sult Rivera,  Historiia  de  Jalapa,  III,  400-401,  514-515;  Banqueiro,  Ensayo 
de  Yucatan,  42-45;  Niles'  Register,  LXI,  66,  131,  196. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  97 

The  Department  can  not  conclude  these  orders,  without  reiter- 
ating that  the  eight  thousand  dollars  placed  in  the  hands  of  your- 
self, and  such  other  advances  as  Col.  Peraza,  in  behalf  of  the 
Government  of  Yucatan,  may  think  proper  to  make  you  upon  the 
contract  existing  between  his  and  this  government,  are  the  only 
funds  you  can  rely  upon  for  fitting  out  and  supporting  the  squad- 
ron under  your  command:  and  if  these  are  insufficient  to  enable 
you  to  go  to  sea  under  these  orders,  you  will  not  attempt  it,  but 
remain  in  port,  without  accepting  or  using  any  portion  of  the 
pecuniary  contribution  which  the  government  of  Yucatan  has 
agreed  to  advance.1 

On  Friday,  October  8,  1841,  Lieutenant  Lewis  left  Galveston2 
with  the  above  dispatches  and  secret  orders  for  Commodore  Moore, 
to  be  opened  after  the  completion  of  the  provisioning.  Commo- 
dore Moore  was  still  surveying  the  coast,  being  on  board  the  San 
Antonio,  and  accompanied  by  the  San  Bernard,  commanded  by 
Lieutenant  Crisp.  Lieutenant  Lewis  reached  Moore  on  the  13th, 
and  on  receipt  of  the  documents  Moore  sailed  at  once  for  Galveston. 
The  money  for  the  cruise  and  outfitting  was  deposited  by  the  com- 
missioner in  the  custom-house  in  Galveston.  Within  two  months 
all  preparations  had  been  made;  and,  on  December  13,  1841,  the 
vessels  under  Commodore  Moore  sailed  for  Yucatan.  Outside  of 
Galveston  Bar  Commodore  Moore  opened  his  secret  orders,  and 
found  that  he  was  instructed  to  sail  direct  for  Sisal,  in  the  State 
of  Yucatan,3  and  to  co-operate  with  the  sea  and  land  forces  of 
Yucatan  in  checking  any  hostile  act  of  Mexico.  He  was  also  in- 
structed to  capture  Mexican  towns,  and  to  levy  contributions;  and, 
for  the  purpose  of  compelling  payment,  he  was  authorized  to  de- 
stroy public  works  and  edifices,  and  to  seize  public  property, 
"taking  care,  however,  to  adhere  to  the  principle  that  private  prop^  ^ 
erty  is  always  to  be  respected,  and  never  to  be  violated  except 
when  unavoidable  in  the  execution  of  duty."  These  acts  it  was 
hoped,  would  cause  the  central  government  no  little  annoyance, 
and  would  "strike  a  terror  among  the  inhabitants,  which  may  be 
very  useful  to  us  should  it  again  be  thought  advisable  to  enter 
into  negotiations  for  peace."  For  carrying  out  these  instructions 

'•Archer  to  Moore  September  18,  1841,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
12-13.    Endorsed  by  Moore  as  having  been  received  October  13,  1841. 
2Tennison's  Journal,  folio  372,  p.  4. 
3Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  13-15. 


98  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

of  the  secretary  of  the  navy,  the  Texas  navy  has  been  criticised  by 
historians.  Yet  the  same  methods  were  used  in  the  Civil  War 
twenty  years  lated  by  both  North  and  South. 

The  first  official  communication  received  from  Commodore 
Moore  was  dated  January  31,  1842,  from  the  Texas  sloop-of-war 
Austin  at  anchor  off  Sisal.1  Accompanying  his  own  letter  are 
copies  of  letters  exchanged  between  him  and  the  officials  of  Yuca- 
tan, which  illustrate  the  embarrassing  situation  in  which  he  was 
placed  on  his  arrival.  They  also  show  the  estimation  in  which 
the  Texas  navy  was  held  by  the  government  of  Yucatan,  which 
was  on  the  point  of  reuniting  with  Mexico,  and  was  negotiating 
the  terms  with  the  commissioner,  Quintana  Eoo,  under  the  im- 
pression that  Texas  would  not  be  able  to  comply  with  her  engage- 
ments. But,  encouraged  by  the  arrival  of  the  Texan  fleet,  it  in- 
sisted on  justice  from  Mexico  ;  and  the  refusal  led  to  a  war,  which 
for  the  time  diverted  the  energies  of  Mexico  from  Texas  to 
Yucatan.2  Among  other  things  the  letter  says  : 

Dec.  13,  ...  I  opened  the  "Secret  Orders"  received  1st 
October,  in  the  presence  of  Lt.  A.  G.  Gray,  Purser  N.  Hurd,  and 
Doct.  Wm.  Eichardson.  ...  I  arrived  and  anchored  off  Sisal 
on  the  6th  inst,3  the  schooners  San  Antonio  and  San  Bernard  in 
company,  having  met  the  former  on  the  4th,  and  the  latter  on 
the  5th,  .  .  .  exchanged  salutes  with  the  Castle,  and  on  the 
next  day  proceeded  to  the  city  of  Merida,  Lt.  Com'g.  Seeger  in 
company  with  me. 

The  Yucatan  political  situation  is  next  portrayed,  and  Moore 
then  says: 

The  San  Antonio  takes  this  letter  to  Galveston  and  proceeds 
ediately  to  New  Orleans  for  provisions,  and  when  she  joins 
me  1  will  be  enabled  to  keep  at  sea  until  the  1st  May,  without 
calling  on  the  government  for  one  dollar.  If  it  be  the  wish  of 
His  Excellency  the  President  to  coerce  Mexico  to  acknowledge  our 
Independence,  I  can  at  once  blockade  all  the  ports  of  entry,  viz.  : 
Vera  Cruz,  Tampico,  and  the  Brazos  de  Santiago;  and  if  I  had 
the  steamer  Zavala  to  co-operate  with  the  Squadron,  I  could  levy 
contributions  on  several  of  their  towns  to  a  greater  amount  than 


to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
21-36.    The  date  of  the  letter  as  printed  is  1841,  which  is  clearly  incorrect. 
2Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  21. 
Manuary,  1842. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  99 

the  entire  cost  of  the  Navy  —  without  the  Zavala  little  else  can  be 
effected  but  to  pick  up  any  vessel  that  they  hazard  out.  .  .  . 
The  vessels  building  in  New  York  when  I  left  Galveston,  for  the 
Mexican  Navy,  I  will  use  my  utmost  to  intercept,  and  if  they  have 
contraband  of  War  on  board,  I  will  send  them  to  Galveston  —  this 
course  being  strictly  in  accordance  with  International  law.  .  .  . 
I  leave  to-day  for  Campeche  and  Vera  Cruz;  off  the  latter  place 
I  will  cruize  some  time. 

Commodore  Moore  was  also  instrumental  in  saving  the  cargo  of 
the  American  schooner  Sylph  of  New  Orleans,  which  had  been 
wrecked  on  the  Alacranes,  and  he  rescued  the  crew  and  sent  them 
with  the  cargo  to  New  Orleans  in  the  San  Antonio.  He  makes 
the  assertion  that  the  Austin  was  full  of  rotten  wood  and  that  the 
agent  of  Texas  in  supervising  the  construction  of  the  vessels  was 
grossly  at  fault.  This  reference  was  to  J.  G.  Tod,  and  seems  to 
be  the  beginning  of  the  estrangement  which  in  later  years  was 
emphasized  by  President  Jones's  nomination  of  Tod  to  take  the 
place  of  Commodore  Moore,  who  had  been  deprived  of  his  position 
(illegally,  Moore  says)  as  commodore,  by  President  Houston. 
While  Commodore  Moore  was  detained  at  Merida,  uncertain  of 
his  success  in  negotiating  with  the  Yucatan  officials,  rumors  of 
danger  threatening  him  reached  Lieutenant  Alfred  Gray,  com- 
manding the  ship  Austin.  As  Gray  could  not  communicate  with 
Moore,  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  detain  as  hostages,  until  the 
commodore's  safe  return,  the  commissioners  from  the  national  gov- 
ernment of  Mexico  and  from  Yucatan,  who  were  taken  from  the 
American  barque  Louisa  on  their  way  to  Yera  Cruz.1  Lieutenants 
A.  Irvine  Lewis  and  Cummings  secured  the  commissioners  and  they 
were  held  until  Moore  was  communicated  with.  As  soon  as  pos- 
sible he  informed  Gray  that  he  was  in  no  danger  and  directed--  * 
him  to  release  them.  iMoore  said  that  under  similar  circum- 
stances he  would  have  done  as  Gray  did;  but  suitable  expressions 
of  regret  were  addressed  to  the  commissioners.  In  Commodore 
Moore's  next  report  to  the  secretary  of  war  and  the  navy,  he 
makes  mention  of  the  capture  of  the  Mexican  schooner  Progneso. 
By  this  vessel  he  sent  to  Galveston  a  letter  in  which  he  says  :2 


,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  30-33  ;  Tennison's  Journal,  folio  376,  p.  1. 
These  commissioners  had  been  appointed  to  consider  the  reunion  of  Yucatan 
to  the  Mexican  Federation. 

2Moore  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  Navy,  February  6,  1842,  in  Moore's 
To  the  People  of  Texas,  36. 


100  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

I  have  this  day  taken  as  a  prize  the  Mexican  Schooner  Progreso. 

I  was  off  Vera  Cruz  yesterday  and  saw  one  of  the  vessels  built 
in  New  York  for  the  Mexican  Navy,  and  learn  to-day  that  she 
has  been  in  three  or  four  days,  and  the  other  one  is  hourly  expected. 

A  Lieutenant  of  Artillery  (Mexican  Army)  was  passenger  in  the 
schooner  Progreso.  ...  I  intend  keeping  him,  as  I  will  all 
other  officers  of  the  government  who  fall  into  my  hands,  until  I 
can  hear  something  definite  of  the  Santa  Fe  expedition. 

The  following  is  a  contemporary  account  of  the  capture  of  the 
Progreso  :L 

Feby  22d  1842 

Lut  Wm.  A  Tennison  of  our  Navy  arrived  on  Saturday  in 
charge  of  the  Mexican  Schooner  Progresso  captured  by  the  sloop 
of  war  Austin  in  sight  of  Vera  Cruz  ...  on  the  6th.  She  is 
ladened  principally  with  Flour  and  Sugar.  .  .  .  When  the 
Progresso  left  the  schooner  of  war  San  Barnard  was  in  chase  of 
another  Mexican  vessel,  which  was  stated  to  have  on  board  a  large 
amount  of  specie.  .  .  .  The  San  Barnard  was  to  the  windward 
of  her  and  between  her  and  the  shore,  and  so  certain  was  Com. 
Moore  of  the  prize  that  we  would  not  think  it  worth  while  to  join 
in  the  chase.  .  .  . 

A  general  officer  was  captured  on  the  Progresso  when  he  saw 
the  Texan  flag  run  up  he  tore  off  his  epaulettes  thmst  them  in 
his  pockets,  but  it  was  no  use  he  was  caught  in  the  act.  .  .  . 
Sat-Anz2  has  purchased  an  old  English  steam  ship  carrying  4 
guns  of  an  English  system,  and  if  he  has  any  spirit — with  her 
and  the  New  York  Brig  may  offer  Com.  Moore  a  fight — nothing 
would  be  more  welcomb  to  the  Tars. 

On  February  25,  when  the  Austin  was  again  at  anchor  off  Sisal, 
g  Commodore  Moore  learned  from  a  pilot  that  the  Mexican  ship 
expected  from  New  York  was  lost  on  the  Florida  reef  on  her  way 
out,  and  the  other  Mexican  vessels  would  not  give  him  battle.  The 
schooner  San  Antonio  left  Sisal  on  February  1,  for  Galveston  with 
a  letter  from  the  governor  of  Yucatan  to  the  president  of  Texas; 
and  she  was  expected  by  Commodore  Moore  to  meet  him  at  the 
Areas  Islands  on  her  return  about  March  1,  1842.  From  the 
Areas  Islands  Moore  intended  to  go  to  Laguna,  at  which  place 

1Tennison's  Journal,  folio  376,  pp.  2-3 ;  copied  from  the  Galveston  Civil- 
ian, February  22,  1842.  See  also  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  February 
23,  1842. 

2Santa  Anna. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas. 

he  was  to  overhaul  the  rigging  and  paint  the  ships.    On  March  8, 
Commodore  Moore  writes  from  Campeachy:1 

I  arrived  here  on  the  afternoon  of  the  6th  inst.,  from  the  Areas 
Islands,  where  I  waited  two  days  for  the  San  Antonio  without 
meeting  her;  on  my  arrival  here  her  delay  was  accounted  for  by 
the  sad  intelligence  of  the  mutiny  on  board  of  her  at  New-Orleans 
(to  which  place  she  went  for  provisions,)  and  of  the  murder  of 
one  of  the  most  promising  officers,  Lieut.  Fuller,  whom  I  have 
ever  known.  I  expect  to  meet  Capt.  Seeger  at  Laguna,  for  which 
place  I  leave  to-night,  and  I  will  mete  out  to  the  rascals  the 
uttermost  penalties  of  the  law.2 

Moore  sailed  that  night,  and  two  days  later  he  received  the 
following  official  note,3  recalling  him  to  Texas: 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR  AND  NAVY, 

15th  December,  1841. 
Commodore  E.  W.  Moore, 

Commanding  Texas  Navy. 

Sir.  —  I  am  directed  by  His  Excellency  the  President  to  order 
that  the  squadron  under  your  command  return  forthwith  to  the 
port  of  Galveston,  and  there  await  further  orders.  .  .  . 

Geo.  W.  Hockley. 

In  reference  to  this  note  Moore  says  :4 

No.  16  ...  was  received  outside  Laguna  Bar  on  the  10th 
March,  per  Schooner  of  War  San  Antonio,  and  was  written,  as 
will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  date  two  days  after  the  inaugura- 
tion of  President  Houston.  It  was  the  first  communication  that 
I  had  received  since  sailing,  and  although  a  peremptory  order,  I 
was  compelled  to  disobey  it.  It  will  be  seen  by  the  subsequent 
letter  from  the  Department  (20)  that  the  course  adopted  by  mj 
was  approved  by  the  President. 

The  letter  referred  to  by  Moore  as  approving  of  his  disobedience 
to  this  order  reads  as  follows  :5 

*Moore  to  Lemus,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  41-42. 
2See  also  Telegraph  and  Texas  Register,  February  23,  1842. 
3Hockley  to  Moore,   December    15,   1841,   in  Moore's   To   the  People  of 
Texas,  43  ." 


5Hockley  to  Moore,  April  14,  1842,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
50-51. 


102  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR  AND  NAVY, 
April  14,  1842. 
Com.  E.  W.  Moore, 

Commanding  Squadron. 

Sir:  Your  dispatches  by  Capt.  Crisp  were  handed  into  the  De- 
partment yesterday.  .  .  .  Your  proceedings  personally,  and  of 
Courts  Martials,  specially,  are  approved,  and  the  latter  confirmed. 

Concerning  the  order  for  the  recall  of  the  navy,  Houston  in  his 
speech  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  July  15,  1854,  said:1 

The  new  President2  was  inaugurated  on  the  12th  of  December 
following;3  and  we  find  by  the  records,  that  on  the  15th  of  that 
month  the  navy  was  recalled  forthwith,  and  ordered  to  the  port 
of  Galveston.  The  orders  ought  to  have  reached  the  navy  in  ten 
or  twelve  days.  A  pilot  boat  was  dispatched  to  carry  the  orders 
to  Commodore  Moore,  the  commander;  but  that  vessel,  owing  to 
peculiar  influences  at  Galveston,  or  some  other  circumstances,  was 
not  permitted  to  reach  Campeachy  until  the  10th  of  March  fol- 
lowing. On  the  first  of  May,  I  think  it  was,  the  fleet  returned. 

In  this  connection,  it  is  necessary,  in  referring  to  Houston's 
order  dated  December  15,  1841,  to  correct  a  very  gross  error  on 
the  part  of  historians  which  has,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  never  been 
challenged  by  critics.  Yoakum,4  in  closing  the  chapter  devoted 
to  the  year  1840.,  says : 

The  President's5  health  had  been  for  some  time  very  bad;  and, 
getting  no  better,  he  obtained  from  the-  Congress  a  leave  of  ab- 
sence, and  about  the  middle  of  December  retired  from  his  official 
duties,  leaving  them  to  be  discharged  by  the  Vice-President. 

k  That  is  all  true,  but  in  the  succeeding  pages  Yoakum  does  not 
state  plainly  that  Lamar  afterwards  resumed  his  duties  as  presi- 
dent, and  the  inference  is  left  that  his  retirement  was  permanent, 
which  was  not  the  case.  Thrall6  makes  a  palpable  error.  He  says : 

lCong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Appendix,  1081. 

2Houston. 

81841. 

*A  Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  I,  368. 

5Lamar's. 

"Thrall,  A  Pictorial  History  of  Texas,  137. 


Th&  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  103 

The  cares  and  responsibilities  of  office  weighed  heavily  on  Presi- 
dent Lamar,  and  the  severe  strictures  of  political  opponents  af- 
fected his  deeply  sensitive  nature,  and  he  applied  to  Congress  for 
permission  to  absent  himself  from  the  Kepublic.  The  request  was 
granted,  and  during  the  last  year  the  Government  was  administered 
by  Vice-President  Burnet. 

The  "last  year"  refers,  of  course,  to  1841.  It  is,  of  course,  too 
well  known  to  require  proof,  that  Lamar  was  the  prime  mover 
and  cause  of  the  Santa  Fe  Expedition  of  1841,  and  that  he  fur- 
nished Col.  McLeod  with  a  proclamation  to  be  given  to  the  people 
of  Santa  Fe.1  It  is  also  well  known  that  he  was  the  promoter  of 
the  Yucatan  alliance  consummated  in  the  months  of  July  to  Sep- 
tember, 1841.  Moore  states  in  his  pamphlet2  that  this  alliance 
was  originated  and  was  carried  out  by  Lamar  in  1841.  He  did, 
on  account  of  ill  health,  for  a  time  retire  from  the  presidential 
duties,  but  only  for  a  time.  His  letter  to  Burnet  implies  also  that 
it  was  only  temporary;  for  it  reads  thus:3  "111  health  has  com- 
pelled me  to  ask  of  the  Honorable  Congress  permission  to  retire 
from  the  discharge  of  official  duty  for  the  present."  Bancroft 
falls  into  the  same  error;  he  says:4  "The  labors  of  office  and  the 
animadversions  to  which  he  was  exposed,  induced  Lamar  to  apply 
to  congress  for  permission  to  absent  himself;  and  his  request 
being  granted,  during  the  last  year  of  his  term,  the  government 
was  administered  by  Vice-President  Burnet";  and  adds  in  a  foot- 
note: 

From  Dec.  15,  1840  to  Feb.  3,  1841,  the  acts  of  congress  were 
approved  by  David  G.  Burnet,  after  which  date  no  signatures  are 
attached  to  the  acts  passed  in  the  copy  of  The  Laws  of  the*  Re- 
public of  Texas  in  my  possession,  only  the  word  "approved"  v^^Jx 
the  date,  being  used. 

This  last  statement,  however,  proves  nothing,  for  in  printing  the 
laws  passed  during  Houston's  administration  from  1841  to  1844  his 
signature  never  appears,  though  he  did  sign  many  of  them.  Those 

Eugene  C.  Barker,  in  University  of  Texas  Record,  V,  159;  Bancroft,  II, 
333. 

2Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  29. 

8Hobby,  Life  and  Times  of  David  G.  Burnet,  23. 

'Bancroft,  II,  343. 


104  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

which  he  signed  are.,  as  the  secretary  of  state  explains,1  simply 
marked  "approved." 

I  have  here  devoted  much  space  to  proving  that  Lamar  did  act  as 
president  in  1841,  because  the  historians  so  plainly  infer  that  he  did 
not,  that  the  general  reader  and  even  the  worker  in  Texas  history 
is  led  astray.  If  their  statements  were  accepted,  of  course  Lamar 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Yucatan  alliance  of  1841 ;  but,  their 
statements  being  disproved,  all  doubt  as  to  Lamar's  having  held 
the  reins  of  government  in  1841  are  removed.  The  peaceful  in- 
vasion of  Texan  territory  by  the  Santa  Fe  expedition  had  its  con- 
ception with  Lamar,  and  became  a  calamity  only  because  of  cir- 
cumstances over  which  he  had  no  control.  Had  the  mission  been 
successful,  he  would  have  been  heralded  as  the  foremost  states- 
man of  Texas.  The  Yucatan  alliance  was  timely  and  of  great 
help  to  Texas,  and  has  only  been  recorded  with  doubting  language 
by  historians  because  it  was  little  understood  by  historians,  and 
because  of  the  bitter  attacks  made  upon  it  by  Houston  in  after 
years.  Notwithstanding  the  great  deference  given  to  Houston's 
opinions,  nearly  all  the  historians  give  the  Yucatan  alliance  and 
the  conduct  of  the  Texas  squadron  in  Yucatan  a  left-handed  com- 
pliment. Lamar  never  quit  his  station  because  he  shrank  from 
criticism,  as  historians  have  stated;  on  the  contrary,  in  his  own 
lifetime,  an  able  biography  of  him  appeared  in  a  leading  Texas 
publication,2  and,  according  to  it,  he  was  willing  that  his  reputation 
should  stand  or  fall  according  to  these  two  policies. 

Commodore  Moore  remained  at  the  port  of  Carmen,  Laguna  de 
Terminos,  from  the  tenth  until  the  twenty-eighth  of  March,  at 
which  time,  accompanied  by  the  two  schooners,  San  Antonio  and 
&**i  Bernard,3  he  sailed  for  Vera  Cruz.  He  says: 

.  .  .  arrived  off  Vera  Cruz  on  the  31st,  and  ran  close  in 
under  the  Island  of  Sacrificios  to  send  in  a  boat  to  the  United 
States  Ship  Warren.  ...  I  discovered  that  the  Steamer  under 
the  Castle  was  raising  steam,  and  the  Schooner  now  under  Mexi- 
can colors  was  warping  alongside  of  her.  I  immediately  run  up 

H^ammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  792. 

*Texds  Almanac,  1858,  109-114.  The  sketch  was  probably  either  pre- 
pared by  Lamar  or  reviewed  by  him. 

3Moore  to  Hockley,  April  4,  1842,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
46-50. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  105 

the  boat  and  began  making  preparations  to  give  them  a  warm  re- 
ception, (9  o'clock  A.  M.)  standing  out  to  get  an  offing,  the  wind 
being  very  light,  and  we  being  barely  out  of  gun  shot  of  the  Castle. 
I  remained  near  all  day,  passing  once  inside  of  one  of  the  reefs 
forming  the  harbour,  but  they  did  not  come  out.  The  Warren 
sent  a  boat  out  to  the  ship,  by  the  officer  who  came  in  her,  I 
learned  .  .  .  that  Mr.  Thomas  Lubbock1  who  escaped  from 
Mexico,  had  sailed  but  a  few  days  previous  ...  for  Laguna 
to  join  me;  that  night  I  sent  the  San  Antonio  back  to  Laguna  for 
Mr.  Lubbock,  and  stood  to  the  N.  and  W.  in  Company  with  the 
San  Bernard;  the  following  forenoon  I  captured  the  Mexican 
Schooner  Doloritas  nine  days  from  Matamoras  bound  to  Vera  Cruz, 
she  was  very  near  the  land  when  we  discovered  her,  and  the  super 
cargo  and  part  of  the  crew  made  their  escape  in  the  boat  .  .  . 
— she  parted  company  yesterday  for  Galveston,  and  in  the  after- 
noon I  landed  the  Captain  Mate  and  boy  with  all  their  private  effects 
at  Point  Delgada.  .  .  . 

I  herewith  enclose  all  the  quarterly  returns  of  this  Ship  and  the 
San  Bernard,  a  correct  chart  of  the  sea  coast  of  Texas,  a  correct 
chart  of  the  bar  and  harbour  of  Pass  Caballo  with  the  Labacca  and 
Matagorda  Bays,  and  a  plan  of  the  proposed  break-water,  by 
which  twenty  feet  water  can  be  made  at  the  bar  at  a  comparatively 
trifling  expense,  and  there  is  after  getting  in,  one  of  the  finest 
harbors  in  the  world.  .  .  . 

On  the  3rd  inst,  within  a  few  miles  of  Tuspan,  we  captured 
the  Mexican  Schr.  "Dos  Amigos,"  from  Matamoros,  bound  to  Tus- 
pan, with  a  cargo  of  salt.  I  will  dispatch  her  also  to  Galveston 
to-night  or  tomorrow,  in  company  with  the  San  Bernard,  the 
Comd'r.  of  which  vessel2  will  take  this  dispatch  to  the  Seat  of 
Government  and  return  to  Galveston  with  an  answer  and  instruc- 
tions for  me,  by  the  time  I  arrive  there.  I  touch  at  Sisal  to  get 
ten  thousand  dollars  which  will  be  due  on  the  8th  inst.,  when  I 
will  sail  direct  for  Galveston,  in  pursuance  of  your  orders  of  the 
15th  Dec.  .  .  .  there  is  every  necessity  of  keeping  the  squad/^ 
ron  at  sea,  and  in  a  fighting  condition,  to  prevent  our  Ports  being 
blockaded  and  all  communication  cut  off  from  the  United  States. 
Without  the  speedy  return  of  our  Navy  on  thfe  coast,  the  navy  of 
Yucatan  will  be  captured  or  join  that  of  Central  Mexico,  through 
fear,  if  nothing  else. 

In  a  letter  of  the  next  day,3  he  adds : 

*A  member  of  the  Santa  F6  expedition. 

2D.  H.  Crisp. 

'Moore  to  Hockley,  April  5,  1842,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  50. 


106  Alliance  Between  Texas  and  Yucatan. 

I  feel  it  my  imperative  duty  to  urge  upon  the  Department  the 
necessity  of  fitting  out  the  steamer  Zavala,  in  order  that  we  may 
keep  the  ascendency  J^y  sea  and  the  communication  open  between 
Galveston  and  New  Orleans. 

Moore,  in  commenting  upon  his  recommendation  respecting  the 
Zavala  says:1 

Nos.  18  and  19  ...  are  letters  from  me  to  the  Depart- 
ment; the  latter2  contains  my  recommendation  to  the  government 
to  fit  out  the  Zavala  which  could  then  have  been  done  at  a  small 
expense  and  saved  from  destruction,  the  most  efficient  vessel  in 
the  Navy;  worth,  $100,000,  which  has  been  lost  to  the  country 
by  the  wise  economy  of  government.  .  .  .  The  wreck  of  the 
Zavala,  now  lying  in  Galveston  harbor,  is  a  melancholy  evidence, 
of  the  sort  of  economy  practised  by  President  Houston  ! 

In  these  remarks  Moore  is  undoubtedly  correct;  for,  by  an  act 
of  the  congress  of  Texas,  approved  by  Houston,3  the  president  of 
Texas  was  authorized  to  have  the  Zavala  repaired,  and  at  a  later 
session  another  act  was  passed,  also  approved  by  Houston,4  mak- 
ing an  appropriation  of  $15,000  for  the  purpose.  This  authority 
Houston  never  used. 

The  following  letter  will  explain  the  temporary  discontinuance 
of  the  Yucatan-Texas  alliance:5 

His  Excellency  the  Governor  .  .  .  has  received  notice  that 
they6  do  not  think  of  invading  us  at  present,  and  that  if  they 
do  invade  at  all  it  will  not  be  for  eight  months  or  a  year,  for 
reason  of  the  want  of  resources  and  the  embarrassed  position  in 
which  Gen.  Santa  Anna  finds  himself.  The  State  can  not  continue 
paying  all  this  time,  eight  thousand  dollars  monthly  to  the  vessels 
Bunder  your  command,  as  agreed  with  the  Government  of  Texas,  to 
which  you  are  subject,  and  for  that  reason  I  inform  you,  without, 
however,  considering  the  friendly  relations  being  interrupted, 
which  has  been  reciprocally  preserved  by  both  Governments;  that, 
you  can  .  .  .  retire  with  the  squadron  under  your  command, 
after  the  current  month  has  expired.  .  .  .  The  Governor  does 


,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  45-46. 
2Moore  to  Hockley,  April  5,  1842. 
8Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  791. 
'Ibid.,  813-814. 

6Lemus  to  Moore,  March  29,  1842,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas, 
53-54. 

The  Mexicans. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  1Q7 

not  doubt  but  that  he  can  depend  upon  the  assistance  of  Texas 
after  the  above  indicated  time  has  transpired. 

Under  date  of  April  22,  1842,  Lemus  adds:1 

The  want  of  funds  has  compelled  the  Treasury  to  give  a  bill 
for  $4000  to  complete  the  $12,208,  which  will  be  paid  in  thirty 
days  after  date,  consequently  Mr.  Seeger  has  only  received  $8666.66 
including  the  account  of  supplies,  and  an  order  for  account  of 
the  Schooner  San  Bernard. 

Commodore  Moore  now  sailed  for  Galveston  with  the  squadron; 
and  arriving  there  May  1,  1842,  and  finding  President  Houston 
and. the  secretary  of  war  and  the  navy,  Col.  Hockley,  there,  he  per- 
sonally handed  the  latter  his  final  report  of  the  cruise  of  the  squad- 
ron, the  most  important  parts  of  which  are  as  follows:2 

I  parted  company  with  the  San  Bernard  on  the  morning  of 
the  6th  April,  and  in  consequence  of  continued  winds  .  .  . 
did  not  arrive  at  Sisal  until  the  morning  of  the  18th,  when  I  met 
the  San  Antonio,  she  having  on  board  Mr.  Thos.  Lubbock. 
The  same  afternoon  the  brig  of  War  Wharton  arrived,  and  the 
next  day  I  sent  Lt.  Comd'g.  Wm.  Seeger  to  Merida,  ...  On 
the  forenoon  of  the  23rd,  the  San  Bernard  arrived,  when  I  re- 
ceived your  communication  of  the  14th  ult  .  .  .  And  got 
underway — the  brig  Wharton,  and  schrs.  San  Antonio  and  San 
Bernard  in  company:  the  next  afternoon  we  all  anchored  off 
Campeache.  On  the  25th,  the  Yucatan  vessels  of  war,  two  brigs 
and  two  schrs. — went  to  sea,  and  as  they  passed  us  they  lowered 
their  flags  three  times  which  we  of  course  returned.  In  the  after- 
noon I  received  on  board  eight  thousand  dollars.  ...  we  all 
got  under  way  at  1  o'clock  A.  M.,  (26th.)  In  the  afternoon  parted 
company  with  the  Wharton  off  the  Areas  Islands  and  pushed  on 
for  this  place,  where  I  arrived  to-day,  and  anchored  at  4  o'clock — 
the  San  Antonio  in  sight  astern,  but  the  San  Bernard  not,  she 
will  be  up  tomorrow. 

XIII.      THE  MUTINY  ON  BOARD  THE  SAN  ANTONIO. 

On  the  evening  of  February  11,  1842,  there  occurred  a  mutiny 
on  the  Texan  war  vessel  San  Antonio,  which  had  just  arrived  from 
Sisal  and  was  lying  in  the  Mississippi  River  opposite  the  city  of 
New  Orleans.  When  the  principal  officers  had  gone  ashore,  the 

1Lemus  to  Moore,  in  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  55. 

2Moore  to  Hockley,  May  1,  1842,  In  Moore's  To  the  People  of  Texas,  60^61. 


108  The  Mutiny  on  Board  the  San  Antonio. 

seamen  in  some  way  procured  liquor  and  drank  themselves  into  a 
state  of  intoxication.  Their  suspicious  conduct  was  noted  by  the 
officers  left  on  board,  who  began  to  prepare  for  an  emergency,  but 
did  not  suspect  a  mutiny.  The  sergeant  of  marines  asked  M.  H. 
Dearborn,  officer  in  charge  of  the  deck,  for  permission  to  go  ashore. 
Dearborn  replied  that  no  officer  then  on  the  vessel  was  authorized 
to  give  such  permission  and  advised  the  sergeant  to  wait  until  the 
captain  returned.  The  sergeant  continued  to  argue  the  point;  and 
Lieutenant  Charles  Fuller,  who  was  for  the  time  in  charge  of  the 
vessel,  came  on  deck  and  inquired  the  cause  of  the  disturbance. 
Some  of  the  men  told  him  that  they  wished  to  go  ashore.  He 
then  ordered  the  sergeant  to  arm  the  marine  guard.  This  was 
done,  and  the  sergeant  probably  gave  arms  to  the  crew  also.  He 
then  approached  Lieutenant  Fuller  and,  after  having  first  at- 
tempted to  strike  him  with  a  tomahawk,  shot  and  killed  him.  As 
Fuller's  body  lay  on  the  deck,  it  was  beaten  with  muskets  and  cut- 
lasses ;  and  two  midshipmen  were  wounded  in  attempting  to  protect 
it.  The  mutineers  then  shut  up  the  officers  in  the  cabin,  lowered 
the  boats,  and  went  ashore;  but  they  were  followed,  and  several  of 
them  were  arrested,  six  at  once,  and  others  later.1 

Soon  afterwards  the  San  Antonio  sailed  to  join  Moore's  flagship, 
the  Austin,  on  the  coast  of  Mexico,  carrying  two  of  the  mutineers 
and  leaving  nine  in  jail  at  New  Orleans.  On  its  arrival,  Moore  or- 
dered the  trial  of  these  two  by  a  court-martial,  which  convened  on 
the  Austin,  March  14.  One  of  them  was  sentenced  to  be  hung,  and 
the  other  was  given  further  time  to  get  evidence  from  New  Orleans. 
These  proceedings  were  approved  by  the  Texan  government.2 

After  Commodore  Moore  went  to  New  Orleans  to  refit  in  May, 
1842,  he  entered  into  a  correspondence  with  Governor  Roman  of 
Louisiana  concerning  the  prisoners  remaining  in  jail  there,  and 
was  informed  that  a  requisition  from  President  Houston  would  be 
needed  to  secure  their  surrender.  The  requisition  was  accordingly 
issued  on  September  12,  1842,  and  on  September  15  Moore  was  di- 
rected to  order  a  court-martial  to  try  the  accused  as  soon  as  the  tes- 
timony of  witnesses  could  be  procured.  The-  name  of  one  of  the 

'.See  the  New  Orleans  Bee,  February  12;  The  Picayune,  February  13; 
the  New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin,  February  14;  the  Telegraph  and 
Texas  Register,  February  22. 

2Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  47,  48,  51. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  1Q9 

mutineers  was  omitted  in  the  first  requisition,  and  a  special  requisi- 
tion for  him  was  issued  on  October  29.1 

The  prisoners  lying  in  jail  were  surrendered  to  Moore  just  before 
he  sailed  for  Galveston,  April  15,  1843,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
previous  orders  of  President  Houston  a  court-martial  was  or- 
dered, which  convened  on  board  the  ship  Austin  on  April  16,  at 
one  o'clock.  The  court  was  composed  of  Commander  J.  T. 
K.  Lothrop,  president;  Lieutenants  A.  G.  Gray,  J.  P.  Lansing, 
Cyrus  Cummings,  and  T.  C.  Wilbur,  with  Surgeon  T.  P.  Anderson 
as  judge  advocate.  The  prisoners  were  tried  on  the  following 
charges:  first,  murder  and  attempt  to  murder;  second,  mutiny; 
third,  desertion. 

Of  the  prisoners,  Seymour  Oswald,  sergeant  of  the  marines,  had 
escaped  before  the  party  was  surrendered  to  Moore,  and  Benjamin 
Pompilly  had  died  in  prison,  confessing  on  his  death-bed  that  he 
had  killed  Lieutenant  Fuller.  The  court  proceeded  to  the  trial 
of  Frederick  Shepherd,  boatswain  of  the  San  Antonio.  After  the 
examination  of  several  witnesses,  Joseph  D.  Shepherd,  one  of  the 
mutineers,  turned  State's  evidence  upon  a  promise  of  pardon  by 
the  president.  But  for  this  the  prosecution  might  have  failed,  as 
the  principal  witnesses  perished  in  the  ill-fated  San  Antonio, 
which  was  lost  in  the  Gulf  early  in  September,  1842.  The  testi- 
mony of  Shepherd  developed  the  fact  that  the  mutiny  had  been 
planned  and  agreed  to  by  the  crews  of  the  San  Antonio  and  San 
Bernard,  while  these  vessels  were  off  the  eastern  coast  of  Yucatan 
in  January,  1842.  It  was  proposed  to  sell  the  San  Antonio  to 
the  Mexican  government.  Circumstances  forced  the  postponement 
of  the  mutiny  till  the  San  Antonio  reached  New  Orleans. 

The  verdict  of  the  court-martial  after  a  careful  trial  is  recorded 
in  the  following  document,  which  was  signed  by  every  member  of 
the  court: 

TEXAS  SLOOP-OF-WAR  AUSTIN, 

August  18,  1843. 
COMMODORE  E.  W.  MOORE: 

Sir :  We,  the  President  and  members  of  the  court-martial,  con- 
vened for  the  trial  of  Frederick  Shepherd  and  others,  have  the 
honor  to  transmit  to  you  the  accompanying  documents,  being  a 
true  record  of  the  evidence  and  minutes  of  the  court. 

'Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  93,  95,  99,   100,  105. 


1 10  The  Mutiny  on  Board  the  San  Antonio. 

In  discharge  of  the  painful  duty  and  the  awful  responsibilities 
imposed  upon  us,  we  have  endeavored  to  confine  ourselves  strictly 
to  the  law  governing  courts-martial,  and  to  the  evidence  that  has 
been  brought  before  us,  and  we  have  duly  deliberated  upon  the  ver- 
dicts returned. 

In  the  trial  of  Frederick  Shepherd,  we  are  of  opinion  that  there 
is  no  evidence  before  the  court  to  prove  that  he  was  aware  that 
a  mutiny  was  to  take  place,  or  that  he  was  in  a  situation  to  aid  or 
assist  in  quelling  one  on  the  night  of  its  occurrence.  We  have, 
therefore,  found  the  prisoner  not  guilty,  and  recommend  his  dis- 
charge. 

Of  the  prisoners  Antonio  Landois,  James  Hudgins,  Isaac  Allen, 
and  William  Simpson,  we  have  only  to  say  that  we  deem  the  evi- 
dence elicited  at  the  trial  of  each  and  every  one  of  them  suffi- 
ciently clear  and  distinct  to  convict  them  each  of  the  various 
charges  and  specifications  preferred  against  them,  and  have  there- 
fore sentenced  them  to  death. 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  evidence  in  the  case  of 
William  Barrington,  from  which  you  will  find  that  he  was  deeply 
engaged  in  the  mutiny  on  board  the  San  Antonio;  but  it  appears 
in  the  evidence  that  he  informed  one  of  the  officers  that  it  was  to 
take  place.  In  consequence  of  this  information,  the  court  has  sen- 
tenced him  to  receive  one  hundred  lashes  with  the  cats. 

Of  the  evidence  in  the  case  of  John  Williams  and   Edward 
Keenan,  we  think  it  unnecessary  to  make  any  comments.     Wil- 
liams, you  will  find,  is  strongly  recommended  to  mercy. 
Very  respectfully, 

Lothrop, 

Gray, 

Lansing, 

Cummings, 

Wilbur.1 

In  carrying  out  the  sentence  of  the  court-martial,  Moore  pro- 
ceeded with  due  formality.  On  April  22,  William  Barrington  was 
punished  with  one  hundred  lashes  on  the  back.  On  April  25, 
Moore  had  the  sentence  of  each  mutineer  who  had  been  given  the 
death  penalty,  together  with  the  laws  governing  the  navy,  read  to 
him  before  the  assembled  officers  and  crew,  and  warned  him  to  be 
ready  to  die  the  next  day.  On  that  day,  when  all  were  assembled 
and  the  necessary  preparation  had  been  made,  he  told  the  pris- 
oners of  his  duty  to  see  the  verdict  executed;  and  that,  as  it  was 

rCong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  2160. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  HI 

his  first  experience  of  the  kind,  he  hoped  it  would  also  be  the  last. 
At  noon  the  ship  was  hove  to,  and  the  four  who  had  been  con- 
demned to  death  were  hanged  at  the  yard  arm.  Prayers  were  then 
read  over  each  separately,  and  the  bodies  dropped  into  the  sea.1 

The  conduct  of  Moore  in  executing  the  sentence  of  the  court- 
martial  which  he  had  ordered  was  characterized,  in  a  communica- 
tion addressed  to  him  by  Secretary  of  War  and  Marine  G.  W. 
Hill,  as  murder;  and,  for  this  and  other  alleged  offenses,  he  was, 
by  order  of  President  Houston,  dishonorably  discharged  from  the 
naval  service  of  the  Republic.2  The  action  of  the  president,  how- 
ever, was  sharply  censured  by  a  House  committee  of  investigation 
of  the  Eighth  Texas  Congress;  and,  as  to  the  charge  of  murder,  a 
court-martial  provided  for  by  the  same  Congress  declared  Moore 
not  guilty.3 

xiv.    MOORE'S  EFFORTS  TO  FIT  OUT  THE  FLEET  AT  NEW  ORLEANS 

AND   HIS   AGREEMENT    WITH    YUCATAN. 

While  Commodore  Moore  was  awaiting  orders  at  Galveston  after 
his  return  from  the  Mexican  coast,  he  received  the  following  com- 
munication from  the  secretary  of  the  navy  regarding  the  Progreso  :* 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR  AND  MARINE, 
Com.  E.  W.  Moore,  Galveston,  May  3rd  1842.. 

Commanding  Texas  Navy. 
SIR.— 

His  Excellency,  the  President,  has  instructed  me,  for  reasons 
appearing  to  him  upon  the  petition  and  showing  of  the  party  in- 
terested, to  direct  that  the  prize  schr.  "Progreso,"  lately  captured 
and  sold,  be  permitted  to  pass  the  blockade,  at  present  maintained, 
on  the  part  of  this  Government,  against  the  ports  of  Mexico  on 
the  Gulf,  and  to  enter  any  one  of  said  ports  without  hindrance  or 
molestation  by  the  navy  of  this  Republic.  . 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
Signed.  GEO.  W.  HOCKLEY, 

Secretary  of  War  and  Marine. 

'See  Cong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  2160;  THE  QUARTERLY,  VII,  223. 

2Moore,    To    the   People    of    Texas,    182-183. 

sSee    p.    140   below. 

*Moore,    To   the  People  of  Texas,   61. 


112      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

Moore  says  the  Progreso  took  advantage  of  this  passport,  and 
sailed  under  Mexican  colors  from  New  Orleans  with  four  hundred 
kegs  of  powder  while  he  was  there,  and  that  he  could  easily  have 
captured  her  but  for  his  orders.  About  the  same  time,  Moore  re- 
ceived another  order  from  the  secretary  of  war  and  marine  which 
follows  i1 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR  AND  MARINE, 
Commodore  E.  W.  Moore,  3rd  May,  1842. 

Commanding  Texas  Navy. 

Sir,  —  You  will  proceed  forthwith  to  the  Port  of  New  Orleans, 
United  States,  to  refit  —  the  Schooners  San  Bernard  and  San  An- 
tonio will  proceed  to  Mobile  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  such  sup- 
plies as  will  be  furnished  by  our  Consul  at  that  place2  —  the  officers 
necessary  for  the  committal  of  the  mutineers  on  board  the  San 
Antonio  will  proceed  from  Mobile  to  New  Orleans  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

Convoy  will  be  given  to  all  transports  of  troops  from  Mobile  or 
New  Orleans  to  Corpus  Christi.  .  .  . 

I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Your  most  ob't  servant, 

Signed.  GEO.  W.  HOCKLEY, 

Secretary  of  War  and  Marine. 

A  third  order  to  Moore  bearing  the  same  date  as  the  two  already 
given3  directed  him  to  enforce  the  blockade  ordered  by  President 
Houston  on  March  26,  1842.  The  causes  leading  to  the  proclama- 
tion of  this  blockade  of  the  Mexican  ports  are  given  in  the  intro- 
ductory part  of  a  pamphlet  issued  by  President  Houston  as  fol- 
lows :4 

My  Countrvmen  :  —  Repeated  aggressions  upon  our  liberties  —  the 
late  insult  offered  by  a  Mexican  force  advancing  upon  Bexar  —  and 
the  perfidy  and  cruelty  exercised  towards  the  Santa  Fe  prisoners, 
all  demand  of  us  to  assume  a  new  attitude  —  to  retaliate  our  in- 
juries, and  to  secure  our  Independence. 

The  attempt  to  secure  peaceable  recognition  of  independence 


To  the  People  of  Texas,  62. 

2Moore  says  that  the  consul  at  Mobile  was  unable  to  furnish  any  sup- 
plies. 

3Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  63.  The  order  is  printed  with  the 
date  May  3,  1843,  but  a  note  on  page  201  corrects  the  date  to  1842. 

*  Address  of  the  President  to  the  People  of  Texas,  Apr.  4,  1842. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  113 

from  Mexico  was  found  to  be  futile.     In  a  letter  written  to  Barnard 
E.  Bee  on  February  6,  1842,1  Santa  Anna  said: 

I  fully  appreciate  the  problematic  conditions  of  Texas;  and  I 
have  before  me  the  entire  series  of  its  consequences.  I  believe  war 
to  be,  necessary.  I  believe  it  a  measure  indispensable  to  the  salva- 
tion of  Mexico,,  and  that  her  government  will  not  faithfully  per- 
form her  duties,  if  she  does  not  strain  her  resources  to  the  utmost, 
boldly  to  enforce  a  full  confession  of  her  justice. 

Commodore  Moore  remained  a  week  at  Galveston,  and  pursuant 
to  orders  left  on  the  8th  of  May  to  fit  out  his  vessels  to  enforce 
the  blockade.  He  remained  on  board  the  ship  Austin,  and  took 
with  him  the  schooners  San  Bernard  and  San  Antonio.  To  equip 
and  provision  the  vessels  and  to  pay  the  officers  and  men  required 
a  great  deal  of  money,  and  Texan  credit  was  low,  but,  while  Moore 
had  many  promises  of  pay,  he  received  very  little  cash.  According 
to  his  own  account  he  used  of  his  private  means  and  credit  $34,- 
700  ;2  and  in  later  years  his  claim  was  allowed  by  the  Texan  Con- 
gress. 

About  one  month  after  reaching  New  Orleans  Commodore 
Moore  was  almost  ready  to  sail;  but  on  Juna  6  Commander 
Lothrop  joined  the  squadron  with  the  Wharton  and  brought  the 
following  instructions  from  Secretary  Hockley:3 

You  will  furnish  Commander  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop  with  such  men 
and  provisions  as  you  can  procure  for  the  brig  Wharton,  and  pro- 
ceed with  the  squadron  under  your  command,  with  the  utmost 
possible  despatch,  to  enforce  the  blockade  of  the  Mexican  ports,  in 
accordance  with  the  Proclamation  of  His  Excellency  the  President. 

The  Wharton  had  only  nine  seamen  on  board,  was  without  pro- 
visions and  ammunition,  and  would  require  an  additional  outlay 
of  six  thousand  dollars  to  prepare  her  for  the  cruise.  Though  he 
had  already  strained  his  credit,  Moore  attempted  properly  to  equip 
this  vessel,  meanwhile  sending  his  brother  to  Texas  for  one-half 
of  the  appropriation  of  twenty  thousand  dollars  made  for  the  navy 

'See   Austin   City   Gazette,   March   23,    1842. 

*Moore.  To  the  People  of  Texas,  67.  In  this  pamphlet  Moore  publishes 
many  letters  to  prove  that  Houston,  while  ostensibly  advocating  war 
and  anxious  for  the  navy  to  proceed  to  sea,  withheld  the  money  appro- 
priated for  the  purpose. 

3IUd.,  71. 


114      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

by  the  last  Congress.     In  the  letter  which  his  brother  bore  Moore 
said:1 

.  not  one  dollar  of  this  amount  do  I  contemplate 
throwing  into  circulation,  but  if  I  had  it  I  would  be  able  to  raise 
a  sufficient  amount  here  on  my  own  paper,  using  the  Exchequer 
bills  as  collateral  security. 

So  fully  did  Commodore  Moore  rely  on  receiving  this  small 
amount  for  such  an  important  enterprise,  that  he  shipped  two- 
thirds  of  a  crew  for  the  Wharton,  contracted  for  provisions,  arranged 
the  manner  of  payment,  and  had  arrived  at  the  certainty  of  being 
able  to  sail  with  the  whole  squadron  in  ten  days  after  his  brother's 
return,  if  his  mission  proved  successful.  We  may  imagine  his  dis- 
appointment when  his  brother  returned,  and  he  found  that  in 
place  of  the  long-promised  means,  a  shadow  had  been  sent  in  the 
shape  of  President  Houston's  bond  or  obligation  to  pay  over  on 
Moore's  requisition  exchequer  bills,  when  signed,  to  the  amount  of 
ten  thousand  dollars.  The  explanation  sent  along  was  as  follows  :2 

The  President  directs  me  to  say  .  .  .  that  he  has  pledged 
himself,  in  the  papers,  that  no  further  issue  shall  be  made  of  Ex- 
chequer bills  until  the  meeting  of  Congress. 

The  bond  was  absolutely  worthless  to  Moore,  and  meanwhile 
what  he  had  procured  for  the  squadron  was  fast  being  consumed, 
and  his  engagements  for  future  supplies  were  forfeited.  Two  hun- 
dred and  thirty  seamen  had  been  shipped  for  the  four  vessels;  but 
at  the  announcement  of  the  failure  of  the  government  to  send  any 
funds  the  officers  were  disheartened,  the  seamen  commenced  de- 
serting, and  there  was  every  prospect  of  a  complete  failure  of  the 
expedition.  In  this  extremity  Moore  left  at  once  for  Texas,  and 
returned  the  worthless  bond  of  President  Houston.  He  arrived  at 
Houston  July  2,  1842,  and  was  at  once  closeted  with  the  secretary 
of  the  navy.  Among  other  documents  he  placed  the  following  in 
the  hands  of  the  secretary:3 

,   To   the  People  of  Texas,   72. 

72,  73. 

76. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  H5 

Mobile,  26th  May,  1842. 

SIR — Captain  Seeger  of  the  schooner  of  war  San  Antonio,  visits 
Merida  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  money  for  the  draft  of 
($4000)  four  thousand  dollars,  given  me  last  month. 

I  have  also  authorized  Captain  Seeger  to  make  an  arrangement 
with  His  Excellency  the  Governor,  and  yourself,  for  an  additional 
amount  of  money  to  enable  me  to  reach  your  coast  at  an  early  date, 
better  prepared  for  a  longer  stay,  and  I  sincerely  hope  that  the 
Government  of  Yucatan  can  aid  me. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
Signed  E.  W.  MOORE, 

Commanding  Texas  Navy. 
To  the  Hon.  PEDRO  LEMUS, 
Secretary  of  War  and  Marine, 

Merida — Yucatan. 

This  letter  clearly  indicates  that  Moore  was  looking  to  Yucatan 
to  renew  the  alliance  and  to  help  the  Texan  navy;  and  the  sec- 
retary of  war  and  marine  and  President  Houston  were  well  aware 
at  this  time,  both  from  documents  and  from  personal  interviews, 
of  his  plans.  Yet  there  is  no  word  of  disapproval  or  of  protest. 
This  should  be  remembered  in  connection  with  the  subsequent  con- 
demnation of  Moore  for  the  adoption  of  such  a  policy  without 
giving  notice  of  his  intention  to  the  proper  department. 

On  July  5,  Moore  addressed  a  communication  to  the  secretary 
of  the  navy1  in  which  among  other  matters  he  drew  attention  to 
the  fact  that  for  the  past  two  years  nearly  every  officer  had  served 
without  receiving  pay,  that  many  seamen  when  their  time  expired 
had  to  be  discharged  without  pay,  and  that  not  an  officer  in  the 
navy  had  a  commission.  He  also  said  that  the  Zavala,  which  was 
lying  in  Galveston  harbor  unfit  for  service,  must  be  repaired  at 
once  and  caulked  and  put  in  the  docks  at  New  Orleans ;  "if  she  re- 
mains where  she  is  with  the  water  in  her,  the  worms  will  de- 
stroy her  in  six  or  eight  weeks."  Agreeably  to  his  recommenda- 
tion, these  matters  were  at  once  brought  to  the  attention  of  Con- 
gress and  suitable  relief  was  given  by  it.  Appropriations  were 
made  for  the  support  of  the  navy,  for  repairing  the  Zavala,  and 

,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  78-79. 


Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

for  carrying  out  other  recommendations  made  by  Moore;1  but  as 
Houston  would  do  nothing,  all  proved  unavailing.  The  Zavala, 
which  he  was  to  repair,  he  allowed  to  become  a  wreck. 

Moore  says2  that  he  remained  in  Houston  from  the  2d  to  the 
23rd  of  July  trying  vainly  to  get  twenty  thousand  dollars  that  had 
been  a  short  time  before  appropriated  by  the  Texan  Congress  for 
the  support  of  the  navy.  On  the  latter  date  he  called  on  President 
Houston,  who  expressed  his  gratification  at  having  just  had  the 
opportunity  to  sign  another  bill  making  an  additional  appropria- 
tion for  naval  purposes  of  $97,659.  Houston  then  asked  Moore 
when  he  would  return  to  New  Orleans,  and  Moore  replied  that  it 
was  useless  to  return  "without  the  means  of  raising  money  to  sus- 
tain the  Navy."  The  president  then  refused  to  put  the  twenty 
thousand  dollars  Moore  was  asking  at  his  disposal,  but  offered  to 
give  him  a  bond  to  be  used  in  raising  money  on  the  faith  of  the 
appropriation.  Moore  said  that  money  could  not  be  procured  in 
New  Orleans  by  any  such  arrangement;  that  he  had  nearly  ex- 
hausted his  means  and  credit  to  sustain  the  navy  and  would  go  no 
further  till  he  saw  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  to 
aid  him;  and  that  he  would  return  to  New  Orleans  at  once,  "dis- 
band the  Navy  and  leave  the  vessels  to  rot  in  a  foreign  port,  as  offi- 
cers and  men  could  not  be  kept  on  board  without  rations."  The 
next  day  he  wrote  Houston  a  letter  stating  the  necessity  for  his 
having  the  amount  of  the  appropriation,  and  soon  after  he  was  fur- 
nished with  exchequer  bills  to  cover  the  whole  of  it  except  a  small 
amount  that  had  already  been  expended.  But  he  found  with  the 
sealed  orders  which  were  given  him,  and  which  were  not  to  be 
opened  till  he  reached  New  Orleans,  instructions  to  the  effect  that 
he  was  not  to  sell  the  bills  outright,  but  only  to  hypothecate  them, 
their  value  being  thus  seriously  reduced. 

The  commodore  arrived  at  New  Orleans  on  July  31.  He  found 
the  ship  Austin  leaking  seventy- three  inches  a  day,  and  at  once 
made  arrangements  to  put  her  in  dry  dock ;  other  repairs  were  also 
needed  on  her  and  the  Wharton.  He  now  opened  his  sealed  orders 
respecting  the  future  action  of  the  navy  and  found  a  proclamation 
of  blockade  for  the  Mexican  ports,  which  was  to  be  in  force  three 

'Gammel,   Laws  of  Texas,  II,   813. 
*To   the  People  of  Texas,   82-85. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  117 

days  after  its  publication  by  him  in  the  New  Orleans  newspapers. 
One  of  the  reasons  given  in  the  proclamation  for  its  promulgation 
was  that  a  former  proclamation  of  blockade1  had  been  suspended, 
with  a  view  to  refit  the  vessels  necessary  for  its  effectual  enforce- 
ment.2 It  is  likely,  considering  the  time  of  Moore's  arrival  in  New 
Orleans,  that  the  proclamation  was  published  early  in  August, 
1842.  On  August  19,  he  writes  to  the  secretary  of  the  navy  that 
"he  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  negotiating  for  funds  to  get  to  sea. 
The  pressure  in  the  money  market  is  unprecedented,  and  Texas 
liabilities  are  almost  worthless."  On  September  7,  he  reports 
having  made  some  progress,  but  still  lacks  money;  and  asks  that 
the  San  Bernard,  then  at  Galveston  under  command  of  D.  H.  Crisp, 
be  repaired  so  as  to  join  the  squadron.  She  was  not  repaired,  but 
was  blown  ashore  by  a  storm  in  the  month  of  September. 

On  September  26,  Moore  received  from  Acting  Secretary  of  War 
and  Marine  M.  C.  Hamilton  a  communication,  dated  September  15, 
containing  the  following  statements  and  instructions:3 

I  enclose  herewith,  a  copy  of  Proclamation,  issued  by  His  Ex- 
cellency the  President,  revoking  the  order  of  blockade,  published 
in  March  last,  in  reference  to  the  ports  on  the  coast  of  Mexico. 
Your  "sealed  orders"  [for  the  renewal  of  the  proclamation],  dated 
27th  July,  from  this  Department,  are  by  consequence  rescinded,  and 
are  hereby  countermanded  .  .  .  You  will  not  however,  relax  your 
exertions  in  consequence  of  it,  nor  will  your  activity  on  the  Gulf 
be  in  the  smallest  degree  impeded  thereby.  .  .  .  You  will  pro- 
ceed to  sea  without  further  orders;  and  .  .  .  open  your 
"sealed  orders,"  which  are  herewith  transmitted. 

The  proclamation  revoking  that  of  the  26th  of  March  gives  for 
its  reasons  that:4  "treaties  of  recognition,  amity  and  commerce 
have  been  concluded  with  Her  Majesty's  Government  of  England, 
in  which  stipulations  are  entered  into  embracing  the  recognition  of 
Texian  Independence  by  Mexico :"  and  "that  mediation  is  now  em- 
ployed, as  well  as  an  offered  mediation  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  the  North."  And  it  goes  on  to  state  that,  these 
countries  being  desirous  that  the  blockade  should  cease,  Texas,  be- 

'That  of  March  26,  1842. 
2Moore,   To   the  People  of  Texas,   88-89. 
3Ibid.,  95. 
96. 


1  18      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 


ing  under  man)^  obligations  to  them,  therefore  revokes  the  order 
of  blockade;  and  only  Mexican  war  vessels  and  vessels  bound  for 
Mexican  ports  laden  with  contraband  of  war  will  be  liable  to  cap- 
ture. 

The  sealed  orders  enclosed  with  the  secretary's  letter  were 
opened  by  Moore  on  April  19,  1843,  after  leaving  the  bar  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  he  found  that  they  directed  him  to  cruise  up  and 
down  the  Mexican  coast  capturing  all  Mexican  vessels  he  might 
fall  in  with,  "both  armed  and  merchantmen,"  and  capturing  cities 
and  laying  contributions  upon  them.  They  contained  the  following 
general  statement  :  "The  Department  having  great  confidence  in 
your  capacity  and  discretion  as  well  as  your  knowledge  of  inter- 
national law,  deems  it  unnecessary  to  give  more  detailed  or  partic- 
ular instructions." 

A  letter  from  Moore  of  October  14  reports,  among  other  things, 
that  on  October  1  two  midshipmen,  F.  R.  Gulp  and  George  E. 
White,  had  fought  a  duel  in  which  Gulp  was  mortally  wounded; 
and  that  on  October  11  Captain  Robert  Oliver,  commanding  the 
marine  corps,  had  died  on  board  the  sloop  of  war  Austin  of  con- 
gestive fever.  The  same  letter  states  that  Moore  has  made  every 
effort  to  raise  funds,  without  success.  On  October  26  he  again 
writes  to  the  department  that  he  cannot  get  to  sea  if  the  govern- 
ment does  not  furnish  him  with  the  means,  that  the  terms  of  many 
of  the  seamen  are  expiring,  and  that  unless  they  are  paid  it  will 
be  useless  to  endeavor  to  ship  another  crew.  On  November  5, 
Moore  received  a  communication  from  the  secretary  of  war  and 
marine  dated  October  29,  which  said,  among  other  things  : 

With  respect  to  the  detention  of  the  squadron,  I  am  instructed 
by  His  Excellency  the  President,  to  say,  that  he  regrets  it  exceed- 
ingly —  that  it  was  very  much  to  be  wished  that  it  could  have  been 
upon  the  Gulf;  but  that  all  the  funds  placed  by  Congress  at  the 
disposition  of  the  Government  for  that  branch  of  the  public  service, 
have  already  been  placed  at  your  command.1 

Moore  comments  on  this  statement  as  follows:  "Strange  as  it 
may  appear,  not  one  dollar  of  the  $97,659  appropriated  in  July 
1842,  had  been  or  has  ever  been  to  this  day  placed  at  my  command" 
In  a  communication  from  Hamilton  to  Moore,  dated  January  2, 

VMoore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  100,  101,  104. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas. 

1843,  this  assertion  is  acknowledged.  Moore  says,  "The  evident 
intention  of  this  paragraph  in  the  letter,  was  to  impress  the  belief 
on  the  minds  of  the  members  of  Congress  while  in  'secret  session/ 
(which  was  no  doubt  then  resolved  on  by  His  Excellency)  that  I 
had  received  the  whole  of  both  appropriations.  .  .  .  Moreover, 
I  have  been  informed  by  several  members  that  such  was  their  con- 
viction." 

Hamilton's  letter  of  October  29  goes  on  to  say : 

Nothing  has  been  received  in  reference  to  the  schooner  San  An- 
tonio since  she  sailed  for  the  coast  of  Yucatan  in  August  last.  Has 
she  since  returned? 

If  you  cannot  with  the  means  at  your  command,  prepare  the 
squadron  for  sea,  you  will  immediately  with  all  the  vessels  under 
your  command  sail  for  the  port  of  Galveston. 

This  last  clause  contains  the  "order"  to  which  President  Houston 
in  his  proclamation  of  March  23,  1843,1  refers  as  that  for  Moore's 
return  to  Galveston.  This  is  the  order  that  according  to  the  proc- 
lamation was  reiterated  in  the  other  orders  that  were  disobeyed, 
and  is  the  text  for  the  various  charges  made  against  Moore  of  con- 
tumacy, disobedience  of  orders,  mutiny,  and  piracy.  If  the  reader 
examines  the  order  critically,  he  can  see  that  it  was  a  provisional 
order  for  Moore  to  return  to  Galveston,  if  he  found  it  impractica- 
ble to  carry  into  execution  the  government's  positive  orders  to  pre- 
pare for  operations  against  the  enemy,  which  was  still  the  desire  of 
the  government.  Moore  states  that  if  this  had  been  an  unequivocal 
order  for  his  return  to  Galveston,  he  would  have  been  fully  justified 
in  postponing  the  execution  of  the  order ;  for  the  enemy  was  daily 
expected  upon  the  Texan  coast,  and  the  government  of  Texas  would 
certainly  not  wish  him  to  return  to  sea  when  unprepared  to  make 
such  a  defense  as  the  vessels  under  his  command  ought  to  make.2 

On  November  19,  1842,  Moore  received  from  Acting  Secretary 
Hamilton  a  letter,  dated  November  5,  1842,  in  which  appears  the 
following  :3 

Nothing  can  now  be  done  with  the  San  Bernard  until  appropria- 
tions are  made  for  her  repair.  I  much  fear  she  is  lost  to  the  Gov- 

3See  ibid.,   168-170. 

-Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  102,  103;  THE  QUABTEBLY,  IX,  22-24. 
107. 


120      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

eminent,  and  from  accounts  there  is  much  reason  to  fear  that  the 
San  Antonio  is  also  lost,  with  those  on  board.  If  so,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  fit  out  the  two  remaining  vessels  for  efficient 
service,  they  had  much  better  be  in  Galveston  harbor  than  in  a 
foreign  port.  With  the  hope,  however,  that  some  kind  fortune  may 
have  enabled  you  to  accomplish  your  purpose,  I  have  the  honor  to 
be,  etc. 

The  inference  to  be  drawn  from  this,  which  is  another  of  the 
"orders"  cited  in  Houston's  proclamation  of  March  23,  1843,  is 
that  if  by  any  good  fortune  Moore  can  get  his  vessels  to  sea  and 
cruise  on  the  Mexican  coast,  he  is  to  do  so  and  the  government  will 
rejoice;  but  if  not,  then  he  is  to  come  to  Galveston. 

The  fears  expressed  regarding  the  San  Bernard  and  San  Anto- 
nio proved  to  be  only  too  true.  On  September  22,  1842,  Lieutenant 
D.  H.  Crisp  writes  Commodore  Moore:1 

The  gale  .  .  .  drove  me  on  shore  and  left  me  here  in  two 
and  a  half  feet  water.  ...  I  am  getting  everything  out 
and  putting  on  board  the  Galveston.  ...  I  am  rather  short- 
handed,  having  but  20  men,  and  four  on  the  "list."  ...  1 
think  it  will  take  me  about  two  weeks  from  this  to  get 
afloat.  .  .  . 

October  24,  Crisp  writes  Moore  again,  saying  :2 

I  presume  the  best  plan  will  be  to  repair  her  [the  San  Bernard] 
thoroughly  and  launch  her  —  ...  at  present  I  am  doing 
nothing  to  her  —  my  provisons  will  last  about  three  days  more,  and 
then  unless  I  hear  something  from  the  department  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  discharge  my  men. 

The  navy  appears  to  be  hard  up,  and  I  think  we  are  fin- 
ished. .  .  . 

I  hope  we  may  hear  something  from  the  "San  Antonio"  by  the 
next  arrival  —  I  much  fear  that  gale  which  drove  me  ashore  cap- 
sized her  —  with  my  yards  down  it  laid  me  on  my  beam  ends,  and 
I  believe  would  have  capsized  me  if  she  had  not  driven 
ashore.  .  .  . 

The  boat  has  just  arrived  from  Houston,  and  brought  me  no 
news  from  the  department.  ...  so  I  shall  be  obliged  to  dis- 
charge my  men  immediately,  and  when  the  officers  have  eaten  up 
the  rest,  I  presume  they  must  discharge  themselves. 


To  the  People  of  Texas,  108.     Crisp's  letter  was  written  from 
the  San  Bernard. 

110. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  121 

From  the  Archer  Crisp  wrote  on  November  2  that  he  had  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  the  Department  informing  him  that  nothing 
could  be  done  for  him,  and  that  he  must  do  the  best  he  could.  On 
November  8,  Moore  sent  Lieutenant  Crisp  from  New  Orleans  such 
rations  as  he  needed.  These  extracts  from  the  letters  of  Crisp  will 
serve  well  to  show  to  what  straits  the  naval  officers  were  put  to 
secure  even  the  necessities  of  life. 

The  third  of  the  "orders"  cited  by  Houston  in  his  proclamation 
against  Moore  was  dated  November  16,  1842,  and  was  received 
December  I.1  It  simply  instructs  him  to  "carry  out  the  instruc- 
tions heretofore  issued  by  the  department,  under  date  of  29th  Oc- 
tober and  5th  November."  Commodore  Moore,  on  December  2, 
1842,  made  reply  to  this  letter,  saying  among  other  things  :2 

The  San  Antonio  sailed  from  Galveston  on  the  27th  August  first 
for  Matagorda  and  then  for  the  coast  of  Yucatan — she  having  on 
board  over  three  months  provisions.  ...  I  did  not  mention 
her  having  sailed  or  the  nature  of  her  cruize,  deferring  it  until  her 
return,  which  I  have  been  anxiously  expecting  for  more  than  a 
month — but  from  news  received  from  Campeche,  two  days  since, 
up  to  the  15th  November  she  had  not  been  heard  from,  and  I 
very  much  fear  that  she  foundered  or  was  capsized  in  one  of  the 
three  heavy  gales  of  September  and  October.  The  object  of  the 
cruize  was  to  reconnoiter  off  the  coast  of  Yucatan,  and  in  the  event 
of  the  people  of  that  country  holding  out  against  the  troops  of 
Santa  Anna,  Lieu't  Com'g  Seeger  was  to  communicate  with  the 
Governor  and  endeavor  to  obtain  funds  to  fit  out  the  Navy. 

I  received  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War  and  Marine  of 
Yucatan  in  the  early  part  of  November,  from  the  tenor  of  which 
I  have  been  expecting  funds  from  that  quarter,  but  ...  I 
fear  that  nothing  can  be  expected,  .  .  .  for  the  enemy  are 
upon  them  by  both  sea  and  land.  .  .  . 

I  have  been  compelled  to  discharge  within  the  last  month  about 
thirty  men,  whose  term  of  service  have  expired,  and  had  not  one 
dollar  to  pay  them  off;  .  .  .  and  on  the  14th  inst.  there  are 
not  more  [than]  six  men  in  both  vessels  whose  term  of  service  will 
not  have  expired.  Under  this  state  of  things  the  department  will 
see  the  utter  impossibility  of  moving  the  vessels  from  their  present 
anchorage  without  means  to  ship  seamen,  .  .  .  neither  can 
towage  or  pilotage  be  obtained  on  the  credit  of  the  Govern- 
ment. .  .  . 

'See  Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,   111. 
*IUd.,  112. 


122      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

If  I  had  money  to  ship  a  crew  and  purchase  the  balance  of  our 
provisions  and  clothing  ...  I  could  sail  in  a  few  days,  and 
as  the  enemy  are  now  on  the  Gulf  (blockading  Campeche)  .  .  . 
I  would  not  hesitate  attacking  them  with  this  ship  and  the  brig 
Wharton  —  every  officer  in  the  service  is  anxious,  exceedingly  anx- 
ious, to  get  off. 

In  this  letter  Commodore  Moore  also  sends  to  the  auditor  the 
returns  of  the  pursers,  N.  Hurd  and  F.  T.  Wells,  up  to  the  quarter 
ending  October  1,  1842.  And  again  he  speaks  plainly  of  his  de- 
sire to  form  an  alliance  with  Yucatan,  and  indicates  that  Comman- 
der Seeger  is  there  for  that  purpose  as  he  has  been  at  a  previous 
time  during  Houston's  administration.  Afterwards  Moore  was  de- 
nounced as  a  traitor  for  carrying  out  this  plan  ;  but  the  statement 
of  his  wish  to  do  so  evokes  for  the  time  no  criticism  whatever. 

On  the  same  day  that  Moore  sent  this  letter  to  Texas,  the  acting 
secretary  of  war  and  marine  sent  a  letter  to  Moore  at  New  Orleans, 
which  President  Houston  in  his  proclamation  represents  as  the 
fourth  order  that  was  disobeyed.  The  letter  merely  states:1 
"Sir:  —  When  you  shall  have  arrived  at  Galveston  and  prepared 
your  returns,  as  heretofore  instructed,  you  will  immediately  proceed 
to  this  place,  and  report  to  the  department  in  person."  In  reply 
to  this  fourth  order,  Moore  writes  December  19  :2 

I  forward  the  muster  rolls  of  the  sloop  "  Austin"  and  the  brig 
"Wharton"  by  which  the  department  will  see  how  many  men  we 
have  to  take  care  of  the  vessels.  I  am  still  making  every  exertion 
in  my  power  to  raise  money  to  ship  a  crew  and  get  out  of  the 
river;  nothing  from  Yucatan  since  last  I  wrote  —  have  definite  in- 
formation that  the  Mexican  steamer  "Montezuma"  is  on  her  way 
to  Vera  Cruz. 

On  January  12,  1843,  Moore  received  from  the  navy  department 
the  fifth  order  named  in  the  proclamation  as  having  been  dis- 
obeyed. It  is  dated  January  2,  1843,  and  reads  :3 

Your  communication  of  the  19th  ult,  enclosing  muster  rolls  of 
ship  Austin  and  brig  Wharton  has  been  received.  Any  expecta- 


,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  116;  the  letter  was  received  December 
14,   1842. 

2Moore,  to  the  People  of  Texas,  116-117. 
117. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  123 

tions  tli at  may  have  been  entertained  of  realizing  or  in  any  manner 
making  available  the  appropriation  of  the  extra  session  of  Congress, 
will  certainly  end  in  disappointment.  It  was  subject,  from  the  first, 
and  still  is,  to  such  contingencies  as  to  render  it  a  dead  letter  on  the 
statute  books.  .  .  .  You  will,  therefore,  report  in  conformity 
(if  practicable)  with  your  previous  orders,  at  Galveston. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  last  order  rests  on  the  condition  "if 
practicable,"  and  that  the  letter  transmitting  it  acknowledges  re- 
ceipt of  the  muster-rolls  which  Moore  had  sent  to  prove  the  im- 
practicability of  moving  the  vessels  at  that  time.  He  had  also  be- 
come involved  by  the  use  of  his  credit  to  obtain  supplies.  It  was 
apparently  impossible,  unless  by  the  use  of  his  already  overstrained 
private  resources,  to  move  the  vessels  even  to  Galveston.  The  only 
hope  that  remained  was  that  Yucatan,  now  closely  besieged  by  Mex- 
ico, would  advance  the  means  for  defeating  the  common  enemy. 
Through  two  friends  Commodore  Moore  received  aid  to  dispatch 
a  very  fast  pilot-boat,  the  schooner  Two  Sons,  to  Yucatan  with  a 
proposition  to  the  governor  of  that  state.  It  was  dated  on  the 
sloop  of  war  Austin,  New  Orleans,  January  17,  1843,  and  the  most 
essential  part  of  it  is  as  follows:1 

His  Excellency,  the  Governor  of  Yucatan.     Sir — 

In  the  latter  part  of  August  last,  I  dispatched  the 
schooner  of  war  San  Antonio  to  Yucatan  with  letters  to  His  Ex- 
cc41ency,  Governor  Mendez,  containing  certain  propositions  on  my 
part,  the  tenor  of  which  were,  that  if  the  government  of  Yucatan, 
would  send  to  me  the  sum  of  $20,000  to  fit  the  vessels  under  my 
command  for  sea,  I  would  pledge  myself  to  sail  forthwith  for  your 
coast  and  protect  it  from  the  invading  force  of  the  Government  of 
Santa  Anna  .  .  .  The  object  in  sending  this  communication  to 
you  now,  in  this  manner,  is  to  renew  those  propositions  .  .  .if 
your  Excellency  will  send  to  me  by  the  schooner  which  conveys  this, 
the  sum  of  $8,000,  I  will,  as  soon  after  its  reception  as  the  utmost 
haste  and  dispatch  will  admit  of,  sail  for  your  coast,  [and]  at- 
tack forthwith  our  common  enemy,  who  are  now  blockading  your 
ports. 

E.  W.  MOORE. 

This  proposition  was  favorably  received  by  the  governor  of  Yuca- 
tan, and  Colonel  Martin  F.  Peraza  was  sent  to  New  Orleans  with 

'Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  119-121. 


124      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

the  money  for  which  Moore  had  asked  and  with  authority  to  con- 
clude an  agreement  whereby  Yucatan  might  obtain  the  services  of 
the  Texan  fleet.  The  agreement  was  signed  at  New  Orleans,  Febru- 
ary 11,  1843.1  It  was  quite  similar  to  the  one  that  President 
Lamar  had  made  with  Pereza,  as  the  agent  of  Yucatan,  September 
17,  1841.2  The  essence  of  it  was  that  on  condition  of  receiving  from 
Yucatan  money  enough  to  get  the  Texan  fleet  to  sea,  Moore  should 
sail  as  promptly  as  possible  to  Campeche  and  attack  the  Mexican 
squadron  which  was  then  blockading  that  port;  and  that  after  cap- 
turing this  squadron  he  was  to  continue  his  cooperation  with  the 
Yucatecan  government  until  the  Mexican  army  should  also  be 
forced  to  surrender,  for  which  service  he  was  to  receive  eight  thou- 
sand dollars  per  month.  On  February  24,  Moore  wrote  to  Acting 
Governor  Barbachano  of  Yucatan3  that  he  hoped  to  sail  within  a 
week. 

The  next  day,  however,  arrived  Colonel  James  Morgan  and  Wil- 
liam Bryan,  who  had  been  appointed  by  President  Houston  com- 
missioners to  carry  into  effect  a  secret  act  for  the  sale  of  the  Texan 
navy  passed  by  the  Texan  Congress  January  16.4 

By  the  same  steamer  that  brought  them,  Moore  received  a  letter 
from  Secretary  of  War  and  Marine  Hill,  which  he  opened  in  the 
presence  of  Colonel  Morgan.  It  contained  the  sixth  and  last  order 
cited  in  President  Houston's  proclamation  of  March  23  as  having 
been  disobeyed.  On  January  27  a  letter  was  presented  to  Commo- 
dore Moore  from  the  commissioners,  enclosing  another  letter  from 
the  department  of  the  same  date  as  that  previously  received.  The 
letter  from  the  commissioners  read : 

New  Orleans,  Monday  27th  February,  1843. 

Sir: — You  will  receive  herewith  a  letter  from  the  Hon.  Secretary 
of  War  and  Marine  of  the  Eepublic  of  Texas  in  regard  to  the  ves- 
sels of  the  Eepublic  under  your  command  in  this  port:  and  we 

*A  translation  is  given  in  Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  125-126. 

a/6id.,    17. 

3Ibid.,    129. 

4There  was  a  third  commissioner,  Samuel  M.  Williams,  appointed,  but 
he  did  not  serve.  The  secret  act  has  not  been  found;  its  provisions  can 
only  be  inferred  from  the  act  of  February  5,  1844,  repealing  it  (Gammel, 
Laws  of  Texas,  II,  1027),  which  refers  to  it  as  authorizing  the  sale  of 
the  navy. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  125 

should  be  glad  to  receive  your  report  with  as  little  delay  as  practi- 
cable. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be, 

With  every  respect, 
Your  obedient  servants, 

J.  Morgan, 
Signed 

To  Commodore  E.  W.  Moore,  Wm.  Bryan. 

Commanding  Texas  Navy. 

The  enclosed  order  read: 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR  AND  MARINE, 

Washington,  22nd  January,  1843. 
To  Commander  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop, 
Or  officer  in  command  of  Navy, 

Sir: — Immediately  upon  the  reception  of  the  order  you  will  re- 
port the  condition  of  the  vessels,  the  number  of  officers  and  seamen 
under  your  command,  to  Wm.  Bryan,  Sam'l  M.  Williams  and 
James  Morgan,  who  have  been  commissioned  by  the  President  to 
carry  into  effect  a  secret  act  of  Conor  ess  with  reoard  to  the  Navy, 
and  you  will  act  under  and  be  subject  to  the  order  of  said  com- 
missioners, or  any  two  of  them,  until  you  receive  further  orders 
from  this  department. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Signed  G.  W.  HILL, 

[Endorsed:]  Secretary  of  War  and  Marine. 

Received  February  27. 

Moore  was  recognized  by  the  commissioners  as  the  officer  in  com- 
mand of  the  navy,  and  therefore  as  the  proper  recipient  of  the 
order  they  enclosed  to  him.  But  they  had  previously  delivered 
him  an  order  bearing  the  same  date — January  22 — from  Secretary 
Hill  directing  him  to  leave  the  Texan  vessels  under  command  of 
the  senior  officer  present  and  report  without  delay  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  and  Marine  at  Washington.  Moore's  explanation  of 
his  conduct  in  the  premises  is  that  he  followed  a  well  known  mili- 
tary rule  in  obeying  the  order  received  last,  there  being  no  priority 
of  date.1 

Everything  that  passed  between  Moore  and  the  commissioners 
was  apparently  harmonious;  no  serious  misunderstanding  seems  to 

'Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  130-132. 


126      Moore's  Efforts  to  Fit  Out  the  Fleet  at  New  Orleans. 

have  arisen ;  they  seem  to  have  had  entire  confidence  in  Moore  and 
to  have  acquiesced  in  his  every  suggestion;  and  there  is  no  protest 
on  record  from  either  Morgan  or  Bryan.  According  to  the  orders 
Moore  had  received  and  obeyed>  he  was  to  be  guided  by  what  any 
two  of  them  agreed  upon.  There  was  no  friction,  and  they  agreed 
on  all  matters.  Then,  was  not  everything  done  in  a  legal  way? 
And  if  any  one  was  to  blame,  was  it  not  the  commissioners  rather 
than  Moore  ?  Their  instructions  read  that  "should  sickness  or  any 
other  cause  prevent  the  commissioners  from  acting  jointly,  they  or 
either  of  them,  may  act  in  all  things  separately  and  singly,  but  not 
adversely."1  Another  point  in  their  written  instructions  was  as 
follows :  "Should  Post  Captain  E.  W.  Moore,  not  forthwith  render 
obedience  to  the  orders  of  the  department  with  which  you  are 
furnished,  you  will  have  published  in  one  or  more  newspapers,  in 
the  city  of  New  Orleans  my  proclamations." 

On  March  10,  Moore  wrote  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  war  and 
marine2  fully  explaining  his  plans  and  purposes  and  his  obliga- 
tion to  comph7  with  his  agreement  with  the  Yucatan  government. 
The  arrangement,  he  said,  was  one  greatly  to  the  advantage  of 
Texas,  and  could  be  ended  any  time  that  Texas  so  desired. 

On  April  3,  1843,  Moore  received  from  Acting  Secretary  of  War 
and  Marine  Hamilton,  in  a  letter  dated  March  21,  1843,  the  follow- 
ing order  :3 

In  consequence  of  your  repeated  disobedience  of  orders,  and  fail- 
ure to  keep  the  Department  advised  of  your  operations  and  pro- 
ceedings, and  to  settle  your  accounts  at  the  Treasury,  within  three, 
or  [at]  most  six  months,  from  the  receipt  of  the  money  which  has 
been  disbursed,  as  the  laws  require,  and  as  you  were  recently  or- 
dered to  do,  you  are  hereby  suspended  from  all  command,  and  will 
report  forthwith,  in  arrest,  to  the  Department  in  person. 

On  receipt  of  this  Commodore  Moore  at  once  wrote  the  following 
letter  to  the  commissioners  :4 

lCong.   Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  App.,  1081. 
2Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,   137-138. 
3Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  139-140. 

4Moore,  ibid.,  140.  See  also  Conq.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  2166; 
Moore,  Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy,  11-13. 


The  Navy  of  the,  Republic  of  Texas.  127 

TEXAS  SLOOP  or  WAR  AUSTIN, 

New  Orleans,  April  4th,  1843. 
Gentlemen  — 

The  communication,,  dated  21st  March,  from  the  Department  of 
War  and  Marine,  was  handed  to  me  by  one  of  you  on  the  evening 
of  the  3rd  instant,  and  as  there  has  been  and  is  a  singular  erro- 
neous opinion  in  the  mind  of  the  Executive  in  relation  to  my  acts 
and  motives,  both  of  which  are  most  seriously  impugned,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  Navy,  (now  ready  for  sea,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  seamen)  and  save  my  own  reputation,  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  the  tenor  of  the  communication  referred  to  above,  should 
not  be  known  to  anyone  until  we  arrive  at  Galveston,,  for  which 
place  I  will  sail  direct,  as  soon  as  I  get  to  sea  ;  on  my  arrival,  I  will 
proceed  in  person  to  the  Seat  of  Government  agreeably  to  orders, 
and  on  my  arrival  at  that  place  I  feel  assured  that  I  can  satisfy  His 
Excellency  the  President,  that  so  far  from  having  any  disposition 
to  disobey  orders,  I  have  used  every  possible  exertion  to  get  the 
vessels  in  such  a  condition  that  I  could  venture  on  the  Gulf.  .  .  . 
My  "sealed  orders"  having  been  countermanded  and  others  is- 
sued, I  would  be  pleased  if  both,  or  either  of  you  take  passage  to 
Galveston  in  the  ship  with  me.  ... 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

With  high  regard, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

E.  W.  MOORE, 
Commanding  Texas  Navy. 
Messrs.  J.  MORGAN  and  WM.  BRYAN,  New  Orleans. 

This  letter  gave  entire  satisfaction  to  the  commissioners,  and 
they  united  in  the  desire  that  Moore  retain  command  of  the  ves- 
sels.1 That  the  commissioners  were  entirely  satisfied  with  Moore's 
action  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  neither  of  them  thought  it 
necessary  to  publish  Houston's  proclamation;  and  they  assured 
Moore  that  they  were  empowered  by  the  president  to  act  separately 
when  it  was  not  convenient  for  them  to  act  jointly.2  They  made 
this  statement  to  Moore,  as  he  says,  because  he  hesitated  to  act  on 
the  authority  of  one;  and  this  he  claims  to  have  satisfied  him. 


To  the  People  of  Texas,  139, 
*Ibid.,   142. 


128  Engagements  Off  the  Yucatan  Coast. 

XV.       ENGAGEMENTS     OF     TEXAN     AND     MEXICAN     NAVIES     OFF     THE 

YUCATAN   COAST  AND  HOUSTON'S   PROCLAMATION 

AGAINST  MOORE. 

Commodore  Moore  left  New  Orleans  with  the  ship  Austin  carry- 
ing eighteen  guns  and  a  complement  of  146  men,  and  the  Wharton 
with  sixteen  guns  and  86  men,  on  the  15th  of  April,  1843.  He 
was  accompanied,  in  obedience  to  his  invitation,  by  Commissioner 
James  Morgan :  and  with  him  went  also  Colonel  William  G.  Cooke, 
afterwards  adjutant  general  of  Texas.  He  arrived  at  the  Balize  on 
the  17th,  and  was  there  detained  by  the  fog  until  the  19th.  On 
the  18th  the  American  schooner  Rosario  arrived  and  anchored  near 
him,  having  had  a  passage  of  three  and  one-half  days  from  Cam- 
peche.  She  brought  intelligence  of  the  capitulation  of  the  Mexican 
troops  under  General  Barragan,  near  the  city  of  Merida,  and  of 
the  division  of  the  Mexican  squadron,  the  Montezuma  being  off 
Telchac.  On  leaving  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  the  direction 
of  the  cruise  was  changed,  at  the  suggestion  of  Colonel  Morgan, 
from  Galveston  to  Yucatan.  The  reasons  for  this  were  given  by 
Morgan  himself  in  his  testimony  before  the  court-martial  by  which 
Moore  was  afterwards  tried.1  In  answer  to  questions  from  Moore, 
he  said  that  while  the  Texan  vessels  were  still  within  the  Missis- 
sippi Eiver,  there  came  on  board  the  Austin  the  captains  of  two 
vessels  who  stated  that  they  were  just  from  Campeche;  that  the 
Mexican  and  Yucatecans  were  about  to  settle  their  difficulties ;  that 
Barragan  and  Lemus  had  capitulated;  and  that  Ampudia  was  un- 
derstood to  be  planning  an  expedition  against  Galveston.  The  wit- 
ness had  therefore  hazarded  the  responsibility  of  suggesting  to  Moore 
to  go  by  Yucatan,  on  the  way  to  Galveston,  to  prevent  if  possible  the 
formidable  invasion  of  Texas  that  Houston  had  predicted.  He  ex- 
pressed his  conviction  that  Moore,  without  this  suggestion,  would 
have  gone  straight  to  Galveston.  In  a  letter  to  Moore,  dated  June  3, 
1843,2  which  harmonizes,  so  far  at  goes,  with  the  evidence  given 
before  the  court-martial,  Morgan  states  that  he  wrote  from  the  Balize 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  to  his  colleague  Bryan,  who  was 
still  at  New  Orleans,  not  to  go  to  Texas  at  once,  nor  to  write  to  the 
Department  of  War  and  Marine  till  he  heard  further  from  Morgan 

^loore,  Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy,  12-13. 
2Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  171-172. 


The  Navy  of  the.  Republic  of  Texas.  129 

himself;  for  information  obtained  on  the  outward  voyage  might 
turn  the  squadron  again  towards  Galveston.  And  Moore  says  that 
he  and  Morgan  had  received,  just  before  leaving  New  Orleans,  in- 
formation that  they  regarded  as  credible  to  the  effect  that  Mexico 
had  pledged  herself  to  England,  in  case  she  failed  to  prove  her  abil- 
ity to  reconquer  Texas  by  taking  Galveston  before  May  15,  to  agree 
to  an  armistice.1 

Moore  now  sailed  direct  to  Yucatan,  and  being  much  delayed  by 
adverse  winds,  arrived  at  Telchac  April  27,  one  day  too  late  to 
meet  the  Montezuma.  On  the  next  afternoon  he  communicated 
with  Sisal,  where  he  learned  that  the  Montezuma  had  passed  but  a 
short  time  before.  On  the  evening  of  the  29th,  he  anchored  within 
fifteen  miles  of  Lerma,  and  the  following  morning  at  four  o'clock 
got  under  way.2  At  daylight  the  Austin,  under  Moore's  command, 
and  the  Wharton,  under  Captain  Lothrop,  discovered  two  large 
steamers,  two  armed  brigs,  and  two  armed  schooners  bearing  down, 
evidently  to  attack  them.  The  Texan  vessels  prepared  for  action 
and  headed  directly  for  the  enemy.  At  7  :35  the  Mexicans  began 
firing.  Some  of  the  shot  passed  over  the  Texan  vessels,  and  some 
fell  short,  but  none  reached  their  aim.  At  7  :50  the  Texans  began 
replying,  and  the  engagement  lasted  till  8:26,  when  the  Mexican 
vessels  passed  out  of  range  of  the  Texan  fire. 

Moore  then  cast  anchor  within  seven  miles  of  Campeche.  At 
11:15  the  two  steamers  again  approached,  and  the  fight  was  re- 
newed between  them  on  one  side  and  the  Austin  and  Wharton,  as- 
sisted by  two  schooners  and  some  gunboats  belonging  to  Yucatan, 
on  the  other.  At  11  :40  the  Texans,  finding  that  their  shot  did  not 
reach  the  Mexican  vessels,  again  ceased  firing.  At  1  p.  m.  a  few 
more  shots  were  exchanged,  but  the  distance  made  them  ineffective. 
In  the  course  of  the  engagement,  the  Austin  was  struck  by  one  shot, 
which  did  no  great  damage.  The  Wharton  had  two  men  killed 
and  four  wounded.  The  Mexican  vessels  fared  worse,  losing  four- 
teen men  killed  and  thirty  wounded.  The  Guadalupe  had  seven 
killed,  and  a  number  wounded.3 


To  the  People  of  Texas,  145-146. 
2For  the  account  of  the  engagement  which  followed,  see  Moore,  To  the 
People  of  Texas,  151-153. 

'Midshipman    Alfred    Walke,    Journal    (MS.    in   Texas    State    Library) 
for   April    30.     Captain    Cleveland,   chief   officer   of   the   Montezuma,   died 


130  Engagements  Of  the  Yucatan  Coast. 

The  relatively  great  loss  in  killed  and  wounded  on  the  Mexican 
vessels  is  accounted  for  to  no  small  extent  by  the  fact  that  they 
carried  much  larger  crews  than  the  Texan  vessels.  They  should 
have  inflicted  far  more  damage  than  they  did;  for  the  Montezuma, 
Guadalupe  and  Eagle  carried  in  the  aggregate  four  68-pounders; 
six  42-pounders ;  two  32-pounders;  and  six  18-pounders,  all  Paix- 
han  guns;  besides,  the  Mexican  fleet  had  the  inestimable  advantage 
of  possessing  two  steamers.  The  vessels  of  the  Yucatan  squadron 
joined  those  of  Texas  during  the  fight,  and  in  any  estimate  of  rel- 
ative strength  must,  of  course,  be  counted  with  them.  While  the 
combined  fleet  carried  two  guns  more  than  the  Mexican,  the  broad- 
side was  very  much  lighter.  Colonel  Morgan  testified1  that  the 
entire  crew  of  the  Texan  vessels  considered  the  affair  a  jubilee  oc- 
casion, and  the  only  regret  was  that  they  could  not  close  with  the 
Mexicans  and  fight  it  to  a  finish.  He  adds  that  both  Commodore 
Moore  and  Captain  Lothrop  managed  and  fought  their  vessels 
handsomely.  The  wounded  men  of  the  Wharton  were  sent  to  the 
hospital  at  Campeche  and  were  soon  able  to  be  about. 

On  Tuesday,  May  2,  Moore,  after  giving  his  crew  one  day's  rest, 
endeavored  to  bring  the  enemy  into  action;  but  with  their  three 
steamers, — for  they  had  now  been  re-enforced  by  the  arrival  of  the 
Regenerador — they  were  able  to  keep  directly  to  the  windward  of 
him  and  out  of  firing  range.  Moore  maneuvered  for  three  days 
without  bringing  the.  Mexicans  to  action;  but  on  the  afternoon  of 
May  5  several  ineffective  shots  were  exchanged.  On  the  7th,  a  few 
minutes  after  sunrise,  he  undertook  to  close  with  the  Mtexican  ves- 
sels; but  they  fled  under  steam  and  soon  left  the  Austin  and  Whar- 
ton behind.  Not  a  shot  was  fired  during  the  day.  In  order  to 
give  his  crew  a  little  rest,  Moore  ran  into  Campeche  on  the  after- 
noon of  May  7  and  anchored,  waiting  for  a  breeze  to  resume  his 
maneuvers,  while  the  Mexican  ships  anchored  off  Lerma,  some  six 
miles  away.  On  the  10th  he  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to 

about  the  time  of  the  engagement.  According  to  Moore  (To  the  People 
of  Texas,  157),  his  death  occurred  on  April  29  and  was  due  to  yellow 
fever;  but  Commissioner  Morgan,  in  a  report  to  Secretary  Hill  dated 
May  9,  1843,  says  it  was  understood  that  Cleveland  was  killed. 

Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy,   18. 


The  Navy  of  the.  Republic  of  Texas.  131 

send  a  dispatch  to  Secretary  Hill1  acquainting  him  with  the  doings 
of  the  squadron. 

Moore  found  on  reaching  Campeche  that  an  armistice  existed 
between  Yucatan  and  Mexico,  and  that  a  treaty  of  amity  was  being 
negotiated  under  the  impression  that  the  Texan  squadron  would 
not  come  to  the  relief  of  Campeche.  The  naval  battle  of  April  30 
prevented  the  completion  of  the  arrangement.  While  the  vessels 
were  at  Campeche,  the  governor  of  Yucatan  offered  the  loan  of  two 
long  18-pounders  for  the  Austin  and  one  long  twelve  for  the 
Wliarton,  which  Moore  was  glad  to  accept,  and  which  proved  very 
useful  in  the  action  that  came  a  few  days  later.  With  the  con- 
sent of  the  governor,  these  two  guns  were  afterwards  brought  to 
Galveston. 

On  May  16,  Moore  succeeded  in  engaging  the  Mexican  squad- 
ron again,  and  this  time  there  was  much  sharper  work.2  The  firing 
was  begun  by  the  Mexicans  at  10  :55,  with  the  Austin  about  two 
and  a  half  miles  distant,  the  Wharton  about  one-fourth  of  a  mile 
further,  and  the  Yucatan  squadron  in  shore  near  these  two.  At 
11 :05  the  Austin  replied  with  its  long  eighteen,  and  the  Wharton 
began  firing  also.  The  engagement  soon  became  warm  and  lasted 
until  3  p.  m.,  when  the  Guadalupe  ceased  firing,  and  the  Mexican 
vessels  could  no  longer  be  brought  to  close  quarters.  In  the  course 
of  the  fight,  the  Austin  was,  considerably  damaged  and  lost  three 
men  killed  and  twenty-one  wounded.  The  minutes  of  the  action 
state  that  at  one  time  Moore  ran  his  ship  directly  between  the  Mon- 
tezuma  and  the  Guadalupe  in  seeking  to  close  with  them.  The 
Wharton  lost  two  men  killed  by  the  bursting  of  a  gun,  but  was  not 
struck  by  the  Mexican  shot  at  all.  The  Mexican  vessels  suffered 
greatly.  The  Montezuma  was  badly  damaged,  and  the  Guadalupe 
almost  disabled;  and  the  loss  in  killed  and  wounded  on  the  two 
vessels,  according  to  the  testimony  of  an  English  deserter  from  one 
of  them,  amounted  to  183.3  In  this  fight,  owing  to  the  short 
range  of  its  guns,  the  Yucatan  squadron  took  no  part.  The  Texan 
vessels  threw  a  much  heavier  broadside  than  the  Mexicans ;  but,  in- 
asmuch as  the  distance  at  which  the  greater  part  of  the  firing  took 

^foore,  To   the  People  of   Texas,   149. 

*Ibid.}    100-162. 

3Walke,  MS.  Journal,  entry  for  May   16,   1843. 


132  Engagements  Off  the  Yucatan  Coast. 

place  made  all  except  the  long  range  guns  unavailable,  little  can 
be  inferred  from  the  gross  comparison.  As  Moore  expressed  it,  the 
Paixhan  68-pounders  of  the  Mexican  vessels  were  tremendous  guns, 
and  the  "hum"  of  their  missiles  was  a  "caution." 

Among  those  killed  in  this  engagement  was  Frederick  Shepherd, 
who  was  one  of  the  men  charged  with  mutiny  on  board  the  San  An- 
tonio, but  was  acquitted.  He  was  captain  of  a  gun  on  board  the 
Austin,  and  behaved  himself  with  such  gallantry  as  to  win  from 
Moore  the  strongest  commendation. 

On  June  1,  1843,  Colonel  Morgan  came  on  board  the  Austin 
from  Campeche,  bringing  with  him  a  proclamation  by  President 
Houston.  This  proclamation,  though  dated  March  23,  was  not 
published  until  May  6,  1843.  It  is  as  follows: 

PROCLAMATION. 
BY  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  TEXAS.1 

Whereas,  E.  W.  Moore,  a  Post  Captain  commanding  the  Navy  of 
Texas,  was,  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1 842,  by  the  acting  Secretary 
of  War  and  Marine,  under  the  direction  of  the  President,  ordered 
to  leave  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  in  the  United  States,  and  sail 
with  all  the  vessels  under  his  command,  to  the  port  of  Galveston, 
in  Texas :  and  whereas,  the  said  orders  were  reiterated  on  the  5th 
and  16th  of  November,  1842:  and  whereas,  he,  the  said  Post 
Captain,  E.  W.  Moore,  was  ordered  again,  2nd  December,  1842,  to 
"proceed  immediately  and  report  to  the  Department  in  person" : 
and  whereas,  he  was  again,  on  the  2d  January,  1843,  ordered  to  act 
in  conformity  with  the  previous  orders,  and,  if  practicable,  report 
at  Galveston :  and  whereas,  he  was  again  on  the  22d  of  the  same 
month,  peremptorily  ordered  to  report  in  person  to  the  Depart- 
ment, and  to  "leave  the  ship  Austin  and  the  brig  Wharton  under 
the  command  of  the  senior  officer  present :"  and  whereas,  also,  com- 
missioners were  appointed  and  duly  commissioned,  under  a  secret 
act  of  the  Congress  of  the  Republic,  in  relation  to  the  future  dispo- 
sition of  the  Navy  of  Texas,  who  proceeded  to  New-Orleans  in  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  assigned  them  and,  whereas,  the  said  Post 
Captain,  E.  W.  Moore,  has  disobeyed,  and  continues  to  disobey,  all 
orders  of  this  government,  and  has  refused,  and  continues  to  re- 
fuse, to  deliver  over  said  vessels  to  the  said  commissioners  in  ac- 
cordance with  law;  but,  on  the  contrary,  declares  a  disregard  of 
the  orders  of  this  government,  and  avows  his  intention  to  proceed 

]Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  168-170;  Cong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  App.,  1082. 


The  Navy  of  tJi&  Republic  of  Texas.  133 

to  sea  under  the  flag  of  Texas,  and  in  a  direct  violation  of  said 
orders,  and  cruize  upon  the  high  seas  with  armed  vessels,  contrary 
to  the  laws  of  this  Eepublic  and  of  nations :  and,  whereas,  the 
President  of  the  Eepublic  is  determined  to  enforce  the  laws  and 
exonerate  the  nation  from  the  imputation  and  sanction  of  such  in- 
famous conduct;  and  with  a  view  to  exercise  the  offices  of  friend- 
ship and  good  neighborhood  towards  those  nations  whose  recogni- 
tion has  been  obtained;  and  for  the  purpose  of  according  due  re- 
spect to  the  safety  of  commerce  and  the  maintenance  of  those  most 
essential  rules  of  subordination  which  have  not  heretofore  been  so 
flagrantly  violated  by  the  subaltern  officers  of  any  organized  gov- 
ernment, known  to  the  present  age,  it  has  become  necessary  and 
proper  to  make  public  these  various  acts  of  disobedience,  contumacy 
and  mutiny,  on  the  part  of  the  said  Post  Captain,  E.  W.  Moore; 
Therefore:  I,  Sam  Houston,  President,  and  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  Eepublic  of  Texas,  do,  by  these 
presents,  declare  and  proclaim,  that  he,  the  aforesaid  Post  Captain, 
E.  W.  Moore,  is  suspended  from  all  command  in  the  Navy  of  the 
Eepublic,  and  that  all  orders  "sealed"  or  otherwise,  which  were 
issued  to  the  said  Post  Captain,  E.  W.  Moore,  previous  to  the  29th 
October,  1842,  are  hereby  revoked  and  declared  null  and  void,  and 
he  is  hereby  commanded  to  obey  his  subsequent  orders,  and  report 
forthwith  in  person  to  the  Head  of  the  Department  of  War  and 
Marine  of  this  Government. 

And  I  do  further  declare  and  proclaim,  on  failure  of  obedience 
to  this  command,  or  on  his  having  gone  to  sea,  contrary  to  orders, 
that  this  Government  will  no  longer  hold  itself  responsible  for  his 
acts  upon  the  high  seas ;  but  in  such  case,  requests  all  the  govern- 
ments in  treaty,  or  on  terms  of  amity  with  this  government,  and 
all  naval  officers  on  the  high  seas  or  in  ports  foreign  to  this  coun- 
try, to  seize  the  said  Post  Captain,  E.  W.  Moore,  the  ship  Austin 
and  the  brig  Wharton,  with  their  crews,  and  bring  them,  or  any 
of  them,  into  the  port  of  Galveston,  that  the  vessels  may  be  secured 
to  the  Eepublic,  and  the  culprit  or  culprits  arraigned  and  punished 
by  the  sentence  of  a  legal  tribunal. 

The  Naval  Powers  of  Christendom  will  not  permit  such  a 
flagrant  and  unexampled  outrage,  by  a  commander  of  public  ves- 
sels of  war,  upon  the  right  of  his  nation  and  upon  his  official  oath 
and  duty,  to  pass  unrebuked ;  for  such  would  be  to  destroy  all  civil 
rule  and  establish  a  precedent  which  would  jeopardize  the  com- 
merce on  the  ocean  and  render  encouragement  and  sanction  to 
piracy. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused 
the  great  seal  of  the  Eepublic  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  Washington,  the  23  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of  our 


134  Engagements  Of  the  Yucatan  Coast. 

Lord,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-three,  and  the  Inde- 
pendence of  the  Eepublic  the  eighth. 

Signed,  SAM  HOUSTON. 

By  the  President. 
JOHN  HALL, 

Acting  Secretary  of  State. 

On  reading  the  proclamations  both  Morgan  and  Moore  deter- 
mined that  it  would  be  improper  to  attempt  further  hostilities 
against  the  enemy,  and  agreed  to  sail  for  Galveston  immediately 
on  receipt  of  sufficient  powder  to  fight  their  way  back  if  molested. 
The  governor  of  Yucatan  had  none  to  spare;  but  he  sent  to  New 
Orleans  at  once  and  procured  what  was  necessary  for  the  two  ves- 
sels and  for  his  own  troops.  This  took  several  weeks.  On  the  25th 
of  June  the  Mexican  squadron  left  the  Yucatan  coast  in  the  night, 
and  the  Texan  fleet  was  in  undisputed  possession  of  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico.  •  On  the  28th  of  June  the  Texan  vessels  left  Campeche  and 
on  the  30th  arrived  at  Sisal.  After  remaining  at  Sisal  a  week  and 
making  such  collections  as  were  still  due  from  Yucatan  to  Texas 
and  paying  all  accounts  made  by  himself  and  crew,  Moore  left  the 
Yucatan  coast  with  the  thanks  of  the  people  of  that  country  and 
their  best  wishes  for  his  future  welfare.  After  stopping  at  the 
Alacranes  a  few  hours  to  catch  turtles  for  his  men,  who  were  in 
need  of  fresh  provisions,  the  vessels  sailed  for  Galveston  and  ar- 
rived on  the  14th  of  July,  1843. 

Thus  gloriously  for  Texas  was  the  Yucatan  expedition  ended 
and  the  object  of  the  cruise  attained.  The  Texan  navy  rode  in 
triumph  upon  the  Gulf,  and  Galveston  and  Texas  were  free  from 
apprehensions  of  an  attack  or  invasion  from  Mexico  by  sea.  That 
the  outcome  was  so  unfortunate  for  some  of  its  worthy  leaders,  was 
no  fault  of  theirs;  and  notwithstanding  the  shame  brought  upon 
them  by  Houston,  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  Texas  ap- 
plauded and  endorsed  what  they  had  done. 

Notwithstanding  Houston  in  his  proclamation  states,  "that  this 
Government  will  no  longer  hold  itself  responsible  for  [Moore's] 
acts  upon  the  high  seas,"  the  government  of  Texas  did  nevertheless 
so  hold  itself  responsible;  and  he,  himself,  be  it  said  to  his  credit, 
afterwards  approved  two  joint  resolutions  for  the  relief  of  certain 
disabled  seamen,  marines,  and  landsmen  wounded  in  the  action  of 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  135 

the  16th  of  May  off  Yucatan.1  Among  the  number  awarded  half 
pay  for  life  were  Dick  Streatchout,  Thomas  Atkins,  John  Norris, 
Thomas  Barnet,  George  Davis,  James  Brown,  and  Terence  Hogan ; 
while  Andrew  Jackson  Bryant  was  to  have  the  same  pension,  so 
long  as  his  disability  from  wounds  should  continue. 

XVI.      DISMISSAL    OF    MOORE,    LOTHROP,    AND    SNOW    FROM    SERVICE, 
AND  TRIAL  OF  MOORE. 

President  Houston  in  his  proclamation  demanded  of  all  nations 
in  amity  with  Texas  "to  seize  the  said  Post  Captain,  E.  W.  Moore, 
and  bring  .  .  .  [him]  ...  into  the  port  of  Galveston, 
that  .  .  .  the  culprit  or  culprits  [may  be]  arraigned  and  pun- 
ished by  the  sentence  of  a  legal  tribunal."  Yet,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  the  president  was  averse  to  doing  this,  when  the  culprit  pre- 
sented himself;  and  it  was  only  by  Moore's  own  persistent  efforts 
that  he  was  able  to  get  himself  tried  at  all.  On  the  day  of  his  ar- 
rival at  Galveston,  July  14,  he  addressed  a  note  to  H.  M.  Smythe, 
sheriff  of  Galveston  county,  saying  that,  as  he  had  been  proclaimed 
by  the  president  of  Texas  a  pirate  and  an  outlaw,  he  had  voluntarily 
returned  and  now  surrendered  himself  for  the  purpose  of  meeting 
the  penalties  of  the  law.  The  sheriff  replied  on  July  15  that,  as 
he  had  not  been  asked  to  take  cognizance  of  the  matter,  either  by 
the  president  or  by  any  judicial  authority,  he  did  not  conceive  it 
incumbent  upon  him  to  do  so.2 

While  Moore  was  yet  on  board  ship,  after  reaching  Galveston 
harbor,  he  received  also  a  note  from  J.  M.  Allen,  mayor,  saying  that 
the  citizens  and  military  of  the  city  wished  to  give  him  a  hearty 
welcome  and  begged  that  the  hour  of  his  landing  might  be  fixed  in 
accordance  with  their  purpose.  When  he  came  ashore,  he  was  re- 
ceived with  the  firing  of  cannon  and  the  applause  of  crowds.  He 
made  a  speech  denying  that  he  had  disobeyed  orders;  and  Colonel 
Morgan,  who  landed  with  him,  also  addressed  the  assembled  throng, 
declaring  that  he  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  cruise,  and 
that  under  similar  conditions  he  would  do  the  same  again. 

On  the  17th  of  July  Moore  reported  his  arrival  to  Secretary  Hill; 

'Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  976-977,   1011. 

2For  both  letters,  see  Moore,  Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy,  pp.  20-21. 


136  The  Dismissal  of  Moore  and  Others. 

and  on  the  21st  of  July  he  wrote  again,  saying,   among  other 
things.1 

I  am  .  .  .  anxious  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  which  his 
excellency,  the  President,  has  expressed  so  much  solicitude  to  the 
world  to  have  me  brought  before.2 

On  July  25,  Moore  received  a  letter,  dishonorably  discharging 
him  from  the  Texas  navy.3  The  charges  recited  in  it  are  identical 
with  those  given  in  the  proclamation  of  March  23 ;  but  in  addition, 
he  is  charged  with  piracy,  for  having  acted  as  commander  of  the 
vessels  after  being  suspended,  and  with  murder,  for  carrying  out 
the  sentence  of  the  court-martial  in  the  case  of  the  mutineers  of  the 
San  Antonio.  On  the  same  day  William  Bryan  and  William  C. 
Brashear  informed  Moore  by  letter  that  Commissioner  James  Mor- 
gan had  been  discharged  on  April  3  and  Brashear  appointed 
in  his  stead ;  also  that  Commander  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop  and  Lieuten- 
ant C.  B.  Snow  were  discharged  from  the  naval  service  of  the  Ee- 
public  of  Texas,  and  that  Moore  was  authorized  to  turn  over  the 
command  of  the  ship  Austin  to  the  senior  lieutenant  on  board.  Cap- 
tain Lothrop  was  to  turn  the  brig  Wharton  over  to  Lieutenant 
William  A.  Tennison.4  The  charges  against  Lothrop  were  dis- 
obedience, delinquenc}',  and  contempt  of  his  superiors  in  refusing 
to  assume  command  of  the  navy  on  the  arrest  of  Moore,  April  3, 
1843,  or  to  recognize  and  obey  the  order  of  the  Department  of 
War  and  Marine  to  the  effect.  Concerning  this,  Moore  says  :5 

As  an  evidence  of  the  extraordinary  course  which  the  government 
has  ventured  to  pursue,  in  order  to  crush  her  victims,  I  will  relate 
the  fact,  that  the  President  has  dishonorably  discharged  a  patriotic 
and  meritorious  officer,  in  consequence  of  his  failure  to  execute  an 
order  which  he  never  saw — and  the  authorities  knew  this  fact  when 
the  discharge  was  penned ! !  The  circumstances  were  these :  A 
sealed  letter  was  handed  to  Captain  J.  T.  K.  Lothrop  in  New  Or- 
leans, from  the  Commissioners,  and  was  withdrawn  by  one  of  them 
(Col.  J.  Morgan)  a  few  minutes  afterwards,  before  the  Captain 

'For  both  letters,  see  Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  179-180. 
£In  "this  letter,  Moore  reports  also  the  death  of  Lieutenant  J.  P.  Lansing 
at  Sisal  on  July  3. 

3Moore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  182-183. 
4Ibid.,   181. 
*IMd.,  10-11. 


The  Navy  of  the*  Republic  of  Texas.  137 

went  on  board  of  his  vessel  (where  it  is  customary  to  open  special 
communications.)  It  was  returned,  with  the  seal  unbroken,  when 
solicited  by  the  Colonel  who  expressed  himself  pleased  that  it  had 
not  been  read,  as  circumstances  had  arisen,  which  rendered  its  de- 
livery no  longer  necessary.  He  gave  no  intimation  of  the  character 
of  the  communication  to  Capt.  Lothrop.  All  this  was  done  by 
Col.  Morgan  with  the  full  concurrence  of  the  other  commissioner 
(Mr.  Win.  Bryan).  It  now1  appears  that  the  sealed  letter  con- 
tained an  order  appointing  Capt.  Lothrop  to  the  command  of  the 
squadron  in  my  place — and  he  has  been  dishonorably  discharged 
from  the  service,  for  not  thwarting  the  Government  Commissioners, 
by  ousting  me  from  my  command  in  compliance  with  a  commission 
or  order,  which  he  has  not  seen  to  this  day ! ! 

Lieutenant  Snow  was  dishonorably  discharged  for  leaving  the 
San  Bernard  in  Galveston,  when — as  Moore  claims — he  was  liter- 
ally starved  out  by  the  policy  of  the  government,  and  was  going  to 
join  the  squadron  at  New  Orleans,  carrying  with  him  and  depositing 
with  Moore  some  small  arms,  which  were  liable  to  be  stolen  from 
the  vessel  he  abandoned. 

Moore  and  Lothrop,  and  apparently  Snow  also,  acknowledged 
receipt  of  the  communications  dismissing  them  from  the  service. 
Moore  had  already,  in  his  communication  of  July  21  to  Hill,  ex- 
pressed his  readiness  and  anxiety  for  trial;  and,  in  his  letter  of 
July  28  acknowledging  receipt  of  the  notice  of  his  dismissal, 
Lothrop,  after  protesting  against  his  treatment,  continued  as  fol- 
lows :2 

I  claim  and  demand,  a  fair  and  impartial  hearing  for  the  charges 
brought  against  me,  and  as  His  Excellency  and  the  Department  have 
not  thought  proper  to  render  me  that  common  justice  I  shall  at  the 
proper  time  appeal  to  a  higher  tribunal. 

Seeing  that  President  Houston  said  nothing,  in  his  annual  mes- 
sage of  December  12,  1843,  concerning  the  dismissal  of  Moore, 
Lothrop,  and  Snow  or  the  charges  against  them,  Moore  appealed  to 
Congress.  He  gained  his  point;  the  naval  committees  of  the  House 
and  Senate  of  the  Eighth  Congress  made  a  joint  report3  that  was 

'September   21,    1843,   the   date  of   Moore's  pamphlet. 
2M'pore,  To  the  People  of  Texas,   179-180,  188-189. 
sHouse  Journal,   8th  Tex.  (Cong.,    348-361. 


138  The  Dismissal  of  Moore  and  Others. 

a  complete  vindication   of  Moore's   character  and   conduct.     Ex- 
tracts from  it  follow: 

In  this  case,  Captain  Moore  was  dismissed  from  a  service  in 
which  he  had  made  great  sacrifices  in  sustaining  the  honor  and 
reputation  of  his  country,  and  deprived  of  a  high  and  honorable 
station,  which  he  had  dignified  by  his  official  conduct  and  deport- 
ment, without  a  trial  or  even  the  semblance  of  a  trial;  and  if  such 
a  course  can  be  sustained  or  even  excused  in  the  functionary  pur- 
suing it,  "it  must  be  under  the  provisions  of  some  positive 
law.  .  .  . 

The  undersigned  know  of  no  law  that  justified  it.     ... 

If,  then,  there  is  found  no  authority  in  the  Constitution  for  the 
exercise' of  the  power  which  was  brought  into  action  on  this  occa- 
sion, the  committee  are  at  a  loss  to  know  from  whence  it  was  de- 
rived. If  there  is  any  statute  which  confers  it,  the  undersigned 
have  been  unable  to  discover  it;  but  in  their  researches  upon  the 
subject,  they  have  found  a  statute,  which  expressly  declares,  that 
it  shall  not  hereafter  "be  lawful  to  deprive  any  officer  in  the  mili- 
tary or  naval  service  of  this  Republic,  for  any  misconduct  in  office, 
of  his  commission,  unless  by  the  sentence  of  a  court  martial."  This 
law  .  .  .  has  never  been  repealed.  It  was  therefore  in  full  force 
and  operation  on  the  19th  of  July,  1843,  when  Commodore  Moore 
was  dishonorably  dismissed,  and  deprived  of  his  commission  .  .  ., 
"by  the  order  of  the  President,"  without  "sentence  of  a  court 
martial." 

So  direct  and  palpable  a  violation  of  the  positive  provisions  of 
a  statute  well  known  to  the  Executive  at  the  time  he  gave  the  order, 
cannot  be  justified.  .. 

The  undersigned,  however,  cannot  discover  in  the  papers  and 
documents  submitted  to  them,  the  grievous-  offenses  and  crimes  im- 
puted to  Captain  Moore  in  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  Navy,  conveying  to  him  the  order  of  the  President  for  his  dis- 
honorable discharge. 

With  regard  to  the  first  charge,  the  undersigned  have  found 
abundant  evidence  .  .  .,  showing  that  he  [Commodore  Moore] 
had  expended  more  money  for  the  use  of  the  navy,  than  he  is 
charged  with  having  received;  they  therefore  consider  this  charge 
as  wholly  groundless.  .  .  . 

And  thus  the  committee  went  through  all  the  charges  against 
Moore,  finding  them  all  practically  groundless.  On  the  seventh 
and  last  charge  of  "piracy"  they  comment  in  their  report  as  fol- 
lows: 


The  Navy  of  the-  Republic  of  Texas.  139 

Without  investigating  this  new  and  singular  species  of  piracy — 
a  species  which  seems  to  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  most,  if 
not  all,  the  elementary  writers  on  international  law,  the  under- 
signed deem  it  only  necessary  to  say,  that  the  facts  submitted  to 
them  do  not  sustain  the  charge.  .  .  .  Captain  Moore  was  in 
command  of  the  squadron  by  the  authority  of  the  commissioners, 
which  command,  conferred  as  it  was  by  lawful  authority,  was  a 
full  and  entire  removal,  for  the  time  being,  of  the  suspension  and 
arrest,  which  was  intended  to  be  imposed  by  the  order  of  the  21st 
of  March,  1843.  .  .  . 

But  whether  Captain  Moore  was  guilty  of  treason,  murder,  and 
piracy,  or  not,  it  forms  no  justification,  in  the  opinion  of  the  un- 
dersigned, for  the  violation  of  a  positive  statute  in  dishonorably  dis- 
missing him  from  the  service  without  a  trial,  or  an  opportunity  of 
defending  a  reputation  acquired  by  severe  toils,  privations  and 
hardships,  in  sustaining  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  flag  under 
which  he  had  sailed  and  fought.  If  he  were  guilty,  the  courts  of 
his  country  were  open  for  his  trial  and  punishment,  and  he 
should  immediately  upon  his  return  have  been  turned  over  to  those 
tribunals;  and  if  not  guilty,  it  was  worse  than  cruel,  thus  to  have 
branded  with  infamy  and  disgrace,  a  name  heretofore  bright  and 
unsullied  on  the  pages  of  our  history ;  and  to  have  driven  from  our 
shores,  as  an  outcast  upon  the  world,  one  whose  long  and  well  tried 
services,  all  appreciate  and  approve. 

The  undersigned,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  ac- 
companying resolution, 

JOHN  RUGELEY, 
JAMES  WEBB, 
WM.  L.  HUNTER, 
H.  KENDRICK, 
J.  W.  JOHNSON, 
LEVI  JONES. 

The  resolution  recommended  in  the  report,  after  reciting  "that 
it  is  due  to  Post  Captain  E.  W.  Moore,  to  have  a  full,  fair  and  im- 
partial investigation  of  the  charges,"  provides  that,  as  a  court- 
martial  composed  of  naval  officers  cannot  be  convened,  it  is  made 
the  duty  of  the  secretary,  of  war  and  marine  to  convene,  as  soon  as 
practicable,  a  court-martial  composed  of  the  major  general  of  the 
militia,  at  least  two  brigadier  generals,  and  other  officers  next  high- 
est in  rank,  who  are  to  constitute  a  naval  court-martial.  It 
was  passed  by  Congress,  and  Houston  approved  the  resolu- 


140  Final  Disposition  of  the  Vessels  of  the  Navy. 

tion  itself,1  if  not  the  finding.  The  court  was  composed  of  Major 
General  Sidney  Sherman,  Brigadier  General  A.  Somervell,  Briga- 
dier General  E.  Morehouse,  Colonel  James  Reily,  and  Colonel 
Thomas  Seypert;  with  Thomas  Johnson  as  judge  advocate.  The 
trial  commenced  August  21,  1844,  and  closed  December  7,  1844; 
and  the  decision  was  made  public  through  the  press  January  11, 
1845.  The  charges  against  Moore  were  willful  neglect  of  duty, 
with  six  specifications;  misapplication  of  money,,  embezzlement  of 
public  property,  and  fraud,  with  three  specifications;  disobedience 
to  orders,  with  six  specifications;  contempt  and  defiance  of  the 
laws  and  authority  of  the  country,  with  five  specifications ;  treason, 
with  one  specification;  and  murder,  with  one  specification.  The 
court  found  him  guilty  under  four  specifications  of  the  charge  of 
disobedience,  and  not  guilty  of  all  the  other  charges.  The  report 
of  the  joint  naval  committee  of  the  two  houses  of  the  Eighth  Con- 
gress will  show  that  the  orders  included  in  the  four  specifications 
of  the  third  charge  were  in  part  conditional,  and  that  the  others 
Commodore  Moore  could  not  carry  out  and  so  reported  upon  the 
receipt  of  them.2  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  out  of  twenty-two  spec- 
ifications Moore  was  found  not  guilty  of  eighteen,  and  guilty,  but 
in  manner  and  form  only,  of  four.  Not  guilty  was  the  real  verdict 
of  the  court  and  of  the  people,  and  it  was  so  recorded  by  the  only 
historian3  that  mentions  the  court-martial  proceedings.  Houston 
himself  considered  it  a  full  and  complete  victory  for  Moore  as  evi- 
denced by  his  vetoing  the  findings  of  the  court  with  the  statement, 
"The  President  disapproves  the  proceedings  of  the  court  in  toto, 
as  he  is  assured  by  undoubted  evidence,  of  the  guilt  of  the  ac- 
cused in  the  case  of  E.  W.  Moore,  late  Commander  in  the  Navy/' 

XVII.      FINAL  DISPOSITION  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE  NAVY. 

When  Moore  and  Lothrop  returned  on  the  14th  of  July,  184.3, 
to  Galveston,  with  the  Austin  and  the  WJiarton,  the  Texas  navy 
had  come  to  an  end  so  far  as  active  service  is  concerned.  It 

1Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,   1030. 

*Cong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  2166;  Moore,  Doings  of  the  Texas 
Navy,  23. 

'Thrall,  Pictorial  History  of  Texas,  618:  "The  parties  charged  were 
honorably  acquitted."  By  using  the  word  "parties"  Thrall  probably  means 
to  include  Lothrop  and  Snow;  'but  these,  of  course,  were  not  tried. 


The  Navy  of  th&  Republic  of  Texas.  141 

is  true,  however,  that  officers  were  still  on  the  pay-roll,  and  if  the 
occasion  had  come  for  the  use  of  the  vessels  they  could  have  been 
used  with  much  effect.  That  the  navy  was  intended  to  be  used  of- 
fensively if  necessary,  may  be  gathered  from  the  provisions  of  an 
act  approved  February  5,  1844,  authorizing  the  secretary  of  war 
and  marine  to  contract  for  keeping  the  navy  in  ordinary.1  The 
contract  in  the  case  of  the  ship  Austin,  the  brigs  Wharton  and 
Archer,  and  the  schooner  San  Bernard  was  to  continue  for  one 
year  unless  those  vessels  should  be  required  for  the  public 
service;  and  in  that  case  the  contractor  was  to  be  paid  according 
to  contract.  It  was  further  provided  that  the  act  approved  16th 
January,  1843,  authorizing  the  sale  of  the  navy,  should  be  re- 
pealed. 

Several  writers  have  stated  that  the  sale  of  the  navy  was  never 
attempted;  they  probably  gained  this  impression  from  the  fact 
that  the  vessels  remained  in  possession  of  the  Eepublic.  But  the 
sale  was  attempted,  as  the  following  extract  from  an  interesting 
and  undoubtedly  true  account  of  it  will  show:2 

All  kinds  of  dire  threats  were  made  against  any  nation  or  indi- 
viduals who  should  have  the  temerity  to  bid  on  the  vessels.  As  the 
time  drew  near  things  waxed  to  the  boiling  point.  Companies  were 
organized  and  armed  for  battle  to  protect  the  country  from  the 
outrage  to  be  perpetrated  upon  it.  At  last  the  day  of  sale  ar- 
rived, the  city  was  full  of  excited  people,  and  Captain  Howe  was 
on  hand  with  his  battalion  all  in  uniform  and  armed  to  the  teeth. 
At  about  11  A.  M.  an  officer  of  the  Republic  appeared  at  the  place 
of  sale  and  announced  the  property  for  sale  to  the  highest  bidder. 
The  people  waited  in  breathless  anxiety  and  with  thumping  hearts 
to  see  who  was  going  to  offer  to  buy.  But  after  a  short  suspense  it 
was  knocked  off  to  the  Eepublic  of  Texas.  You  can  imagine  the 
effect  of  dropping  a  piece  of  ice  on  a  white  hot  iron.  The  temper- 
ature went  down  like  when  a  blue  norther  strikes  the  country.  I 
venture  to  say ;  that  the  warlike  spirit  of  Galveston  has  never  been 
at  so  high  a  pitch,  nor  never  been  cooled  off  so  suddenly  since. 

Lieutenant  William  A.  Tennison  was  placed  in  charge  of  the 
vessels  in  ordinary  and  remained  so  until  late  in  September,  1844, 

when,  on  account  of  sickness,  he  was  relieved  of  the  command,  and 

i 

'Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  II,  1027. 

2Emeline  Brighton  Russell,  in  Galveston  News,  October  20,  1901. 


142  Final  Disposition  of  the  Vessels  of  the  Navy. 

William  C.  Brashear  was  commissioned  to  take  charge  of  them, 
Tennison  being  directed  to  report  to  him.  Those  who  have  fol- 
lowed the  history  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States 
can  easily  understand  why  the  navy  was  not  needed  after  being 
placed  in  ordinary.  It  was  because  the  United  States  government 
itself  undertook  the  protection  of  Texas  against  Mexico  from  the 
day  on  which  the  treaty  of  annexation  was  signed,  and  because, 
just  previous  to  that  event  it  ordered  a  naval  force  to  the  Gulf 
for  the  purpose.  The  promise  that  such  action  would  be  taken  was 
made  by  W.  S.  Murphy,  the  United  States  charge  in  Texas,  soon 
after  the  statute  providing  that  the  Texan  fleet  should  be  laid  up  in 
ordinary  was  passed.1  The  navy  of  Texas  was  therefore  no  longer 
a  necessity ;  and  it  was  left  in  ordinary  until  annexation  took  place. 
The  joint  resolution  by  which  annexation  was  effected  provided 
that  the  Texan  navy  should  be  ceded  to  the  United  States.  The 
transfer  was  made  by  Lieutenant  William  A.  Tennison,  who  was 
then  in  command  of  the  vessels,  and  he  states  that  it  took  place  in 
June,  1846.  He  was  left  in  charge  till  August,  when,  finding  that 
he  was  not  recognized  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States  government, 
he  turned  the  vessels  over  to  the  care  of  Midshipman  C.  J.  Faysoux.2 
The  vessels  transferred*  were  the  ship  Austin  of  twenty  guns,  the 
brig  Wharton  of  eighteen  guns,  the  brig  Archer,  eighteen  guns,  and 
the  schooner  San  Bernard,  seven  guns.3 

^yler,  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  II,  287-288. 

2Tennison's  Journal,  folio  394,  p.  1.  There  have  been  found  at  Wash- 
ington only  ithree  papers  relating  to  the  transfer:  1  a  list  of  officers 
of  the  Texan  navy  and  a  statement  of  pay  due  them;  2.  an  abstract  of 
unpaid  bills  for  supplies  furnished  the  navy  from  February  16,  to  May 
11,  1846;  3.  a  muster  roll  of  the  officers  attached  to  the  navy  in  ordinary, 
February  16,  1846. 

3Thrall  is  in  an  error  when  he  says,  page  340,  that  the  San  Jacinto 
was  one  of  the  vessels  transferred.  The  San  Jacinto  was  lost  in  1840 
(see  above,  p.  90).  He  is  also  in  error  in  stating  that  the  San  Bernard 
was  destroyed  in  1842  in  a  storm;  she  was  only  badly  damaged  and  was 
later  repaired.  Finally,  he  is  mistaken  in  saying  that  the  Zavala  was 
wrecked  in  the  same  storm.  She  was  in  bad  repair  early  in  1842 
and  was  run  ashore  on  the  flats  in  Galveston  harbor  to  present  her 
sinking.  There  she  was  permitted  to  lie  until  the  worms  made  her  unfit 
for  repairs,  when  she  was  broken  up  and  sold  in  1844  (Moore,  Doings  of 
the  Texas  Navy,  6).  Brown,  II,  199,  copies  Thrall's  errors. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  143 

XVIII.       THE  OFFICERS  OF   THE  TEXAS  NAVY. 

When  Commodore  Moore  and  Captain  Lothrop  were  discharged 
from  the  service  by  President  Houston,  the  officers  of  the  Texas 
navy,  with  but  three  exceptions,  through  sympathy  with  the  dis- 
charged officers,  and  as  an  expression  of  their  displeasure,  ten- 
dered their  resignations.  No  notice  was  taken  of  their  action  by 
the  Department  of  War  and  Marine,  and  they  were  virtually  in  the 
situation  of  officers  on  leave  of  absence,  without  pay  or  the  right 
to  engage  in  any  livelihood.1  When  annexation  was  consummated, 
they  fully  hoped  to  be  attached  to  the  United  States  naval  estab- 
lishment on  the  strength  of  the  clause  in  the  treaty  of  annexation 
providing  that  Texas,  when  admitted  to  the  Union,  should  cede 
to  the  United  States,  among  other  means  of  defense,  her  navy.  To 
the  destruction  of  all  their  hopes,  the  Navy  Department  at  Washing- 
ton interpreted  this  to  include  only  the  vessels,  and  not  the  officers. 
Commodore  Moore  and  others  of  the  officers  at  once  prepared  a  me- 
morial and  presented  it  to  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  and  it  was 
referred  to  the  committee  on  naval  affairs.  The  committee,  after 
carefully  investigating  their  claims,  reported  a  bill  for  their  incor- 
poration into  the  navy  of  the  United  States  in  comformity  with 
the  terms  of  the  resolutions  of  annexation*  which  formed  the  com- 
pact of  union  between  the  United  States  and  Texas.2  The  method 
proposed  was  to  repeal  the  limitation  fixed  by  the  statute  of 
August  4,  1842,  upon  the  number  of  officers  and  give  the  president 
authority  to  appoint  the  Texan  officers  to  places  in  the  service,  with 
the  proviso  that  these  extra  places  should  not  be  continued  longer 
than  they  were  held  by  the  incumbents  for  whom  they  were  spe- 
cially provided.3  The  officers  of  the  United  States  navy  were 
bitterly  opposed  to  this  measure  and  appointed  Commanders  Buch- 
anan, Dupont,  and  Magruder  to  direct  their  opposition.  Their 
position  was  that  the  proposed  arrangement  would  have  the  effect 
of  elevating  Moore,  Tod,  and  others,  who  had  been  only  lieuten- 
ants while  they  were  in  the  United  States  navy,  over  those  who 


,  To  the  People  of  Texas,  190,  191. 
*Housc  Reports,  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  II    (Serial  No.  584),  Rep.,  288. 
3Buchanan,   Dupont,   and   Magruder,   In  relation    to   the   Claims  of  the 
Officers  of  the  late  Texas  Navy,  1. 


144  The  Officers  of  the  Texas  Navy. 

were  at  that  time  their  superiors;  and  of  giving  still  others  marked 
promotions  without  their  having  undergone  due  probation  service. 
They  interpreted  the  word  "navy"  in  the  resolution  of  annexation 
as  meaning  vessels  only,  and  not  including  officers.  This  interpre- 
tation was  in  harmony  with  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  Texan  officers  who  had 
endeavored  by  mandamus  to  compel  Secretary  Mason  to  pay  him 
his  salary  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States  navy.1  In  this  argu- 
ment Buchanan,  Dupont,  and  Magruder  undoubtedly  had  the  better 
of  the  Texans.  But  when  they  attempted  to  deal  with  the  history 
of  the  Texas  navy  their  statements  are  successfully  challenged  by 
Moore,  and  their  arguments  shown  to  be  fallacious. 

Special  objections  were  raised  to  the  appointment  of  either 
Moore  or  John  G.  Tod  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States  navy.  A 
bitter  fight  was  made  against  Moore  on  the  ground  that  his  dis- 
missal from  service  by  President  Houston  barred  him  from  any 
participation  in  the  benefits  of  the  bill,  even  if  it  should  be 
passed.  In  the  midst  of  the  controversy,  a  pamphlet  containing, 
among  other  documents  prejudicial  to  Moore,  a  copy  of  the  mes- 
sage of  President  Jones  vetoing  a  bill  to  return  to  him  a  portion  of 
the  money  he  had  advanced  for  the  use  of  the  Texas  navy  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  a  defaulter,  appeared  in  Washington.  The 
publication  and  circulation  of  this  pamphlet  Moore  attributed  to 
Houston,2  and  in  answer  lie  wrote  his  Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy. 
In  reply  to  the  denial  of  his  status  as  an  officer  of  the  Texas  navy 
at  the  time  of  annexation,  and  to  the  charge  of  being  a  defaulter, 
Moore  adduced  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  Texas  adopted  June 
28,  1845,  declaring  that  his  trial  by  court-martial  was  "final  and 
conclusive";3  and  two  resolutions  by  the  House  adopted  the  same 
day,  one  of  which  declared  that  the  finding  of  the  court  fully  en- 
titled him  to  continue  in  his  place  as  commander  of  the  Texas  navy, 
and  the  other  that  the  thanks  of  the  Eepublic  were  justly  due  him 
and  those  under  his  command  in  its  service.4 

As  to  Tod,  the  United  States  naval  commanders  thought  he  was 

^rashear  vs.  Mason,  6  Howard,  92,  99,   100. 
2Doings  of  the  Texas  Navy.  3,  32. 
^Senate  Journal,  9th  Tex.  Cong.,  2J  Sess.,  75. 
'House  Journal,  9th  Tex.  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  86. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  145 

not  justly  entitled,  to  be  included  in  the  list  of  officers  connected 
with  the  Texas  navy  at  the  time  of  annexation,  inasmuch  as  his 
commission  as  captain  in  the  navy  of  Texas  from  June,  1840,  was 
made  out  after  the  United  States  flag  was  flying  over  the  Capitol 
building  in  Texas.  Tod  was  given  his  rank  by  President  Anson 
Jones,  who  was  a  bitter  enemy  of  Commodore  Moore.  Jones  in- 
terpreted Houston's  act  dismissing  Moore  as  final  and  appointed 
Tod  to  take  his  place;  and  the  United  States  officers  claimed  that, 
as  Tod  had  never  been  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  his  commission 
was  a  nullity.  In  order  fairly  to  present  Captain  Tod's  position,  it 
is  necessary  briefly  to  recount  some  facts  of  his  career.1  It  will  be 
recalled  that  Moore  had  charged  Tod  with  negligence  when  acting 
as  agent,  in  allowing  poor  wood  to  be  used  in  the  construction  of 
the  Austin.  Tod  evidently  sought  redress  at  the  hands  of  the 
Texas  Congress,  for  shortly  afterwards  we  find,  upon  the  petition 
of  Captain  John  G.  Tod,  a  concurrent  resolution  introduced  and 
passed  thanking  Tod  for  "his  faithful  and  important  services  ren- 
dered to  the  country,"  and  requesting  the  president  to  order  a  copy 
of  the  resolution  to  be  read  at  the  navy  yard,  on  board  each  public 
vessel  in  commission,  in  the  presence  of  officers  and  crew,  and  to  be 
entered  upon  their  log  books.  The  president  promptly  sent  a  mes- 
sage vetoing  the  joint  resolution  of  thanks  to  Tod;  but  the  resolu- 
tion was  reconsidered  January  31,  1842,  and  passed  over  his  veto.2 
There  is  nothing  to  show  whether  or  not  'Moore  had  to  swallow  this 
bitter  pill.  Captain  Tod  served  Texas  as  a  naval  officer  until  1842, 
when,  at  his  own  suggestion,  in  order  to  curtail  the  expenses  of  the 
government,  he  yielded  his  position.  In  later  years  when  the 
Texan  officers  received  back  pay,  Captain  Tod  was  denied  the  ben- 
efits of  the  arrangement,  the  secretary  of  the  navy  insisting  that 
his  commission  was  void.  Texans,  however,  would  not  admit  the 
point,  claiming  that  annexation  was  not  fully  consummated  until 
the  Eepublic  of  Texas  yielded  its  power  and  authority  to  the  State 
of  Texas,  which  took  place  on  February  19,  1846.  Repeated  reso- 
lutions of  thanks  and  endorsements  from  the  Texas  Congress  show 
in  what  high  esteem  Captain  Tod  was  held  in  Texas;  and  at  the 
request  of  the  Texas  senators  and  representatives  Tod  was  at  last 

'See  above,  pp.   74-77,   99. 

•Senate  Journal,  6th  Tex.  'Cong.,  138,  139,  195,  198. 


146  The  Officers  of  the  Texas  Navy. 

paid  equally  with  the  other  officers  connected  with  the  Texas  navy 
at  the  time  of  annexation.1     He  died  in  1878. 

The  efforts  made  during  the  years  1847  to  1850  to  get  any  favor- 
able action  from  the  government  of  the  United  States  toward 
Texas  naval  officers  ended  in  failure.  In  1852  the  endeavor  was 
renewed;  a  joint  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Texas  Legislature 
once  more  instructing  the  Senators  and  requesting  the  Eepresenta- 
tives  to  use  their  influence  to  procure  the  incorporation  of  the 
officers  into  the  navy  of  the  United  States  reciting  that  "they  are 
justly  entitled  to  the  same,  as  well  from  the  construction  of  the 
terms  ...  [of  the  treaty],  as  from  their  high  characters,  per- 
sonal and  professional,  and  the  zeal,  fidelity,  patriotism,  and  valor 
with  which  they  sustained  the  cause  of  this  country  during  her 
struggle  for  Independence/'2  This  effort  came  near  being  success- 
ful, but  like  the  others  it  finally  failed.  It  was  not  until  1857  that 
the  few  remaining  Texan  officers  received  any  recognition  from  the 
government.  The  twelfth  section  of  an  act  approved  March  3,  that 
year,3  reads  as  follows: 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  surviving  officers  of  the  navy 
of  the  Republic  of  Texas,  who  were  duly  commissioned  as  such  at 
the  time  of  annexation,  shall  be  entitled  to  the  pay  of  officers  of 
the  like  grades,  when  waiting  orders,  in  the  Navy  of  the  United 
States,  for  five  years  from  the  time  of  said  annexation,  and  a  sum 
sufficient  to  make  the  payment  is  hereby  appropriated  .  .  .; 
Provided,  That  the  acceptance  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  by  any 
of  the  said  officers  shall  be  a  full  relinquishment  and  renunciation 
of  all  claim  on  his  part,  to  any  further  compensation  on  this  behalf 
from  the  United  States  Government,  and  to  any  position  in  the 
Navy  of  the  United  States. 

The  survivors  benefited  by  this  act4  were  E.  W.  Moore,  commo- 
dore; Alfred  G.  Gray,  Cyrus  Cummings,  William  A.  Tennison, 

Krammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  VI.  1063 ;  House  Reports,  46th  Cong.,  2d 
Sess.,  IV. 

*Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  III,  1005;  Cong.  Globe,  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess., 
2170. 

3Cong.   Globe,  34th   Cong.,  3d   Sess.,  App.  427. 

*The  list  of  beneficiaries  is  taken  from  Tennison's  Journal,  folio  296, 
p.  4.  I  can  find  no  list  elsewhere.  While  this  is  not  dated,  it  reads: 
"Officers  who  received  pay  from  the  U.  S.  Gov't,"  and  could  only  apply 
to  this  act. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  147 

Charles  B.  Snow,  and  William  Oliver,  lieutenants;  John  F. 
Stephens  and  Norman  Hurd,  pursers;  and  the  widow  of  Lieuten- 
ant A.  J.  Lewis.  To  this  list  must  be  added  the  name  of  Captain 
Tod,  whose  pay  was  turned  over  to  his  estate  in  1883.  Another 
claimant  put  in  his  appearance  in  1858.  This  was  Commander  P. 
W.  Humphries,1  who  was  recognized  by  the  Texas  Legislature  as 
entitled  to  the  rank  of  commander  in  the  navy  of  the  Republic  from 
July  3,  1839,  to  the  date  of  annexation  and  entitled  to  pay  the  same 
as  other  officers.  The  midshipmen  were  barred  by  the  secretary  of 
the  navy,  and  today  the  only  survivor,  so  far  as  I  know,  George  F. 
Fuller,  of  Ozone  Park,  New  Jersey,  is  prosecuting  his  claim  under 
the  act  of  1857. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  note  the  kindly  deed  of  the  United  States  in 
thus  assisting  the  former  naval  officers  of  Texas,  who  were  almost 
without  exception  ill  used  by  Texas,  or  rather  by  those  in  power 
in  Texas.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  as  a  matter  of 
right  they  had  not  the  shadow  of  a  claim  against  the  United  States. 
Even  if  the  interpretation  of  the  word  "navy"  in  the  resolution  of 
annexation  were  construed  to  include  the  naval  officers,  the  navy 
had  been  practically  disbanded  when  Moore  returned  from  Yucatan, 
and  the  officers  sent  in  their  resignations.  That  they  should  take 
advantage  of  annexation  to  put  in  a  claim  was  natural;  but  the 
officers  of  the  United  States  navy  were  right  in  opposing  their  ad- 
mission, and  Congress  was  generous  when  it  allowed  them  five 
years'  pay. 

Below  is  a  list  of  the  officers  of  the  second  navy  of  Texas,  which 
was  furnished  on  application  of  Commodore  E.  W.  Moore  by  Adju- 
tant General  C.  L.  Mann.  Their  appointments  were  confirmed  by 
the  Senate  on  July  20,  1842,  and  by  order  of  George  W.  Hockley, 
secretary  of  war  and  marine,  they  were  to  take  rank  as  their  names 
appeared  in  the  list.  The  dates  of  their  commissions  are  given, 
and  it  is  stated  whether  they  were  dead  or  alive  on  July  31,  1850. 
It  will  be  noted  that  over  half  of  them  died  within  the  short  period 
of  eight  years. 

Edwin  Ward  Moore,  Post  Captain,  Commanding 

April  21,  1839,  Alive 

KJammel,  Laws   of   Texas,   IV,    1152. 


148  The  Officers  of  the  Texas  Navy. 

J.  T.  K.  Lothrop,  Commander July  10,  1839,  Dead 

D.  H.  Crisp,  Lieutenant Nov.  10,  1839,  Dead 

Wm.  C.  Brashear,  First  Lieutenant .Jan.  10,  1840,  Dead 

William  Seeger,  Second  Lieutenant ,..,..  .Jan.  10,  1840,  Dead 

Alfred  G.  Gray,  Third  Lieutenant Jan.  10,  1840,  Alive 

A.  J.  Lewis,  Fourth  Lieutenant. Jan.  10,  1840,  Alive 

J.  P.  Lansing,  Fifth  Lieutenant , Jan.  10,  1840,  Dead 

George  C.  Bunner,  Lieutenant ......  .Jan.  10,  1840,  Dead 

A.  A.  Waite,  First  Lieutenant Sept.  10,  1840,  Dead 

William  A.  Tennison,  Second  Lieutenant Sept.  10,  1840,  Alive 

William  Oliver,  Third  Lieutenant i Sept.  10,  1840,  Alive 

Cyrus  Cummings,  Fourth  Lieutenant Sept.  10,  1840,  Alive 

C.  B.  Snow,  Lieutenant : Mar.  10,  1842,  Alive 

D.  C.  Wilbur,  Lieutenant June  1,  1842,  Dead 

M.  H.  Dearborn,  Lieutenant July  1,  1842,  Dead 

E.  M.  Clark,  Surgeon Nov.  22,  1840,  Dead 

Thomas  P.  Anderson,  Surgeon Sept.  10,  1841,  Dead 

J.  B.  Gardner,  Surgeon ,.  .July  20,  1842,  Alive 

Norman  Hurd,  Purser Jan.  16,  1839,  Alive 

F.  T.  Wells,  Purser June  10,  1839,  Dead 

J.  F.  Stephens,  Purser , Sept.  21,  1841,  Alive 

W.  T.  Brennan,  Purser July  21,  1842,  Dead 

On  Brennan's  death,  James  W.  Moore  was  appointed  to  take  his 
place.  In  the  list  of  those  officers  who  petitioned  Congress  to  be 
incorporated  in  the  United  States  navy,  appears  the  name  of  Wil- 
liam E.  Glenn,1  "late  master  of  the  line  of  promotion."  This  care 
fully  prepared  list,  added  to  the  names  mentioned  in  the  body  of 
the  work,  constitutes  the  personnel  of  the  body  of  officers  of  the 
Texan  navy. 

A  few  additional  notes  regarding  some  of  these  may  be  of  in- 

*In  Fuller's  "Sketch  of  the  Texas  Navy"  (THE  QUARTERLY,  VII,  223, 
226),  this  name  appears  as  "Wm.  H.  Glenn."  Fuller  also  includes  Robert 
Bradford  and  Edward  Mason  as  midshipmen  on  board  the  Austin  in  1842 
and  1843  and  Middleton  on  board  the  Wharton,  and  mentions  that  Dr. 
Peacock  acted  as  assistant  surgeon  to  Dr.  Anderson  of  the  Austin.  He 
also  states  that  in  Walker's  time,  Faysoux  commanded  the  whole  Nica- 
raguan  navy,  consisting  of  one  schooner  with  which  he  blew  up  the  whole 
Costa  Rican  navy,  consisting  of  one  brig.  Faysoux  was  afterwards  mate 
of  the  Creole  in  its  Cuban  expedition,  his  commanding  officer  being  Lewis, 
formerly  third  lieutenant  of  the  Wharton. 


The  Navy  of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  149 

terest.  William  Seeger  was  commander  of  the  San  Antonio  when 
she  was  lost.  A.  J.  Lewis  died  some  time  in  the  fifties.  William 
A.  Tennison  was  alive  in  1858.  Thomas  P.  Anderson,  surgeon, 
had  a  son,  Philip  Anderson,  who  was  living  in  Galveston  in  1900. 
Mrs.  E.  W.  Shaw  of  Galveston  is  a  granddaughter  of  Norman 
Hurd.  The  midshipmen,  being  boys  at  the  same  time,  have  natu- 
rally been  the  last  survivors.  Of  these  Major  John  E.  Barrow  died 
in  New  York  in  1902;  W.  J.  D.  Pierpont  died  in  December,  1903. 
Of  all  the  officers  of  the  Texas  navy,  but  one  is  alive  today,  Mid- 
shipman George  F.  Fuller,  of  Ozone  Park,,  New  Jersey.  Com- 
mander Lothrop  died  in  1844  at  Houston.  Just  before  his  death 
he  took  command  of  the  steamship  Neptune,  running  between  New 
Orleans  and  Texas.  But  one  name  remains,  and  the  tale  is  closed. 
Edwin  Ward  Moore  finally  procured  from  the  Texas  Legislature 
the  passage  of  three  acts  providing  that  he  should  be  paid  for  his 
services  and  reimbursed  for  his  expenditures  on  the  navy.  It  ap- 
pears that  by  joint  resolution  approved  by  the  governor  January 
24,  1848,1  $11,398.364  was  allowed  him.  February  23^  he 
was  allowed  a  claim  of  three  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  for 
commanding  the  navy.2  Finally  on  February  2, 1856,  was  passed  an 
act  for  his  relief,3  by  which  the  treasurer  was  authorized  to  pay  him 
$5,290.00,  "Provided  the  said  Moore  shall  first  file  with  the  treas- 
urer a  full  and  final  release  against  the  Republic  and  State  of  Texas 
for  all  demands."  It  has  been  asserted  that  he  never  received  these 
moneys  granted  him  by  Texas.  He  at  any  rate  received  the  com- 
pliment of  having  a  county  named  for  him  in  the  state.  Very  little 
is  known  of  him  after  1837,  but  he  made  New  York  his  home.  He 
came  to  Galveston  in  1860  and  erected  the  old  post-office  building 
in  that  city.  He  took  no  part  in  the  Civil  War,  and  died  in  Vir- 
ginia in  1865. 

There  is  no  question  that  Commodore  Moore  should  be  classed 
as  one  of  the  heroes  of  Texas ;  and  this  narrative  may  fitly  be  closed 
with  the  tribute  paid  him  by  the  foremost  officer  of  the  Confederate 
navy:4 

:Oammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  III,  334-335. 

2Ibid.,  351. 

*IMd.,  IV,  371. 

'Semmes,  Service  Afloat  and  Ashore  During  the  Mexican  War,  49. 


150  The  Officers  of  the  Texas  Navy. 

With  an  energy  and  ability  possessed  by  but  few  men,  he  took 
hold  of  the  discordant  materials  which  Texas  was  collecting  for  the 
formation  of  a  navy  (a  work,  generally,  of  time  and  much  patient 
toil),  reduced  them  to  system  and  order,  and  presented  to  the 
world  the  spectacle  of  a  well-organized  marine,  bearing  the  flag  of 
a  Republic,  not  four  years  old ! 


Index 


Abispa.     Mexican  vessel,  49,  50. 

Admiralty,  Court  of,  57. 

Adventure,  Mexican  ship,  54. 

Allen,  A.  C,  8,  10,  45. 

Allen,  John  M.,  Captain  of  Terrible,  26,  27,  135. 

Anaya,  General  of  Yucatan,  84,  85,  90. 

Anderson,  T.  P.,  Dr.,  83,  109,  148,  149. 

Andrews,  Edmund,  25. 

Arcamble,  C.  S.,  Midshipman,   83. 

Archer,  Branch  T.,  Dr.,  7,  8,  47,  77. 

Archer,  Brig,  75,  84,  121,  142. 

Asp,  Texas  vessel,  77. 

Auld,  Joseph,  Ship's  Carpenter,  83. 

Austin,  Henry,  45. 

Austin,  Stephen  F.,  2,  8,  77. 

Austin,  Flagship,  76,  83,  84,  98,  99,  100,  108,  116,  128, 
129,  142. 

Bache,  R.  Clerk,  83. 

Baker,  J.  H.,  Lieutenant,  83. 

Barker,  Eugene  C,   18,  82. 

Barnett,  Thomas,  23. 

Barrett,  D.  C.,  10,  11,  16,  33,  45. 

Barrow,  J.  E.,  Midshipman,  83,   149. 

Barton,  Seth,  44,  45. 

Bartlett,  Dr.,  48. 

Baudin,  Charles,  Admiral  French  Fleet,  70. 

Beatty,  G.,  Engineer,   83. 

Bee,  Barnard  E.,  Santa  Anna's  letter  to,  113. 

Bennett,  L.  E.,  83. 

Bernard,  J.  B.  F.,  Midshipman,  83. 

Betts,   C.,   Midshipman,   83. 

Bibliography.     Authorities.     See  Preface. 

Blockade  of  Matamoros,  58;  of  Mexican  ports  by  French,  70; 
Mexico  declares  Texas  ports  blockaded,  82,  92;  Mexican 
ports  declared  blockaded  by  Texas,  112,  116,  117. 

Boston,  U.  S.  ship,  26,  78. 

Boylan,  James  D.,  Captain  of  Brutus,  49,  51,  54. 

Bradburn,  W.  P.,  55,  60. 

Brashear,  W.  C.,  83,  136,  142,  148. 

Bravo,  Mexican  war  vessel,  20,  25;  Thomas  Thompsan,  Cap- 
tain of,  63. 

Brazos,  69,  77,  Brig  of  war. 

Brennan,  William  Thomas,  56,  60,  65,  148. 

Brewster,  W.  H.,  83. 


Bronough,  J.  C.,  83. 

Brooks,  Lieutenant  of  Marines,  42. 

Brown,  Jeremiah,  Captain  Invincible,  37,  42. 

Brown,  John  W.,  Boatswain,  5,  81,  83. 

Brown,  William  S.,  Captain  Liberty,  39,  40,  41;  Captain  of 

Invincible,   57. 

Brutas,  Captures  Correo,  9,  31,  32,  36,  38,  39,  46,  48,  55. 
Bryan,  William,  8,  38;  Agent,  45;  Commissioner,   124,   136. 
Bunner,  G.  C.,  Lieutenant,  83,  148. 
Burnet,  David  G.,  President,  30,  47,  52,  57,  108. 
Burnley,  Loan  Commissioner,   67,   72. 
Burns,  Aaron,  Lieutenant  of  Sloop  Opie,  30. 
Burton,  Isaac  Mayor,  47. 
Bustamente,  President  of  Mexico,  64. 
Bynum,  W.  H.,  8. 
Calder,  Roebrt  J.,  Col.,  30,  57. 

Carleton,  H.,  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  6,  7,  38.  ; 

Carson,  Samuel  P.,   36. 
Cassin,  Robert,  Lieutenant,  60. 
Cayaga,  Steamboat,  37. 
Champion,  32. 

Charlestown,  Steam  Packet,  71,  74. 
Chott,  S.,  72. 
Christman,  C.  A.,  83. 
Clark,  J.,  Captain,   84. 
Clark,  R.  M.,  Dr.,  83,  89,   148. 
Clements,   R.   H.,   83. 
Cochran,  Richard,  Dr.,   60. 
Collingsworth,  James,   58. 
Colorado,  Brig,   75. 
Comanche,  Mexican  transport,   46. 
Conrad,  Edward,  45. 
Consultation  of  Texas,  9. 
Cook,  William  G.,  29,  79,   128. 
Cooke,  Louis  P.,  Sec'ty.  Texas  Navy,  87. 
Correo,  Mexicano,  1-9;  captured,  54. 
Correo,  becomes  Texan  vessel,   37. 
Cos,  General,  2,  58. 
Cox,  C.  C.,  Midshipman,  83,  92. 

Crisp,  D.  H.,  Lieutenant,   83,   97;  Captain,    102,    105,   117, 
120,   148. 

Crosby,  Thomas,  Lieutenant  Marines,  56,  60. 
Crout,  James.,  Boatswain,   83. 
Culp,  F.  R.,  Midshipman,  killed  in  duel,   118. 
Cummings,  C.,  83,  109,  146,  148. 
Dallas,  Commodore,  44,  52. 
Damon,  John,  Lieutenant,  51. 
Darocher,  Captain,  60. 


Davis,  Osky,  Lieutenant,  51. 

Davis,  Mexican  Captain,  63. 

Dawson,  Frederick,  72,  75. 

Dearborne,  M.  H.,  83,   108,   148. 

Dearing,  Lieutenant,   51. 

De  Kalb,  Trading  Schooner,  27. 

Dinsmore,  Silas,  16. 

Dinsmore,  T.  S.,  Jr.,  16. 

Doloritas,  Mexican  schooner  captured,    105. 

Dolphin,  76,  84;  becomes  the  W barton  later. 

Dorey,  Fletcher,  Dr.,   83. 

Dos  Amigos,  captured,  105. 

Dunn,  Dr.,  42. 

Eagle,  Mexican  vessel,  130. 

Eliza  Russell,   49. 

Ellis,  Samuel,  45. 

Errors  of  Historians:  Edward,  footnote  2;  Pennybacker,  foot- 
note 2;  Yoakum,  footnote  6;  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
footnote  18;  Yoakum,  42;  Texas  Almanac,  42;  Bancroft, 
73;  Brown,  75;  Morphis,  75;  Yoakum,  75;  University 
of  Texas  Record,  82;  Brown,  84;  Thrall,  84;  Brown, 
92;  University  of  Texas  Record,  92;  Yoakum,  102; 
Thrall,  102;  Bancroft,  103;  Brown  and  Thrall,  footnote 
142. 

Estis,  G.  W.,  Lieutenant,  51,  60,  63,  83. 

Everett,  S.  H.,  36. 

Falvel,  Luke  A.,  Captain  of  Flash,  29,  31. 

Fannin,  J.  W.,  Jr.,  Col.,  3;  letter  of,  footnote  5;  footnote  21, 
note  24. 

Fanny  Butler,  Mexican  transport,  46. 

Faysoux,  C.  J.,  Midshipman,  142;  footnote  148. 

Finances  of  Navy,  20,  32,  38,  66-73,  79,  113,  116,  118,  123. 

Fisher,  S.  Rhodes,  4,  20-24,  36,  45,  48-50,  64. 

Flag,  Navy  of  1835,   16,  43. 

Flash,  the  privateer,   29-31. 

Flora,  32,  41. 

Florentine,  Mexican  schooner  captured,  89. 

Foster,  Robert,   42. 

Franklin,  Benjamin  C.,  57. 

Franson,  Fred,  42. 

Fuller,  Charles,  Lieutenant,  killed  in  mutiny,   108. 

Fuller,  George  F.,  78,  83,  101,  147,  149. 

Galligher,  Lieutenant,  51,  55,  56. 

Galveston,    Artillery   Company,    29. 

Galueston,  Brig,  75. 

Galveston  threatened  with  invasion,   128. 

Galveston  honors  Com.  E.  W.  Moore,  135. 

Gardiner,  J.  B.,  Dr.,  83,    148. 


Garlick,  H.    (S.),  Midshipman,   83. 

Gazley,  37. 

General  Council,    10. 

Gibson,  F.  M.,  Capt.,  Marines,  42, 

Gilmer,  Commissioner  of  Loan,  42. 

Goldborough,  Hugh  A.,  83. 

Gray,  A.  G.,  Lieut.,  83,  98,  99,  109,  146,  148. 

Grayson,    Captain,   Lieutenant  of  San  Felipe,   5 ;   Captain  of 

Oceon,  31;   Captain  of  Yellowstone,  32. 
Grayson,  Peter  W.,  58,  68. 
Green,  Thomas  Jeff.,   38,  45,  46. 
Guadalupe,  Mexican  steamer,    129. 
Gyles,  Robert,  55,  60. 
Hall,   Edward,    5;   footnote   20,   38,   45. 
Hamilton,  General,   71. 

Hamilton,  M.  C.,  Acting  Secretary  War  and  Marine,  117,  116. 
Hannah,  Elizabeth,  20-24. 
Harby,  L.  C.,  Captain  Brutus,  51. 
Hardeman,  Bailey,  Secretary  of  State,  30. 
Harrington,  E.  B.,  55,  60. 
Harris,  William  P.,  25;  Captain  Cayuga,  37. 
Hartman,  J.  A.,  Midshipman,  83. 
Hastings,  Libel,  Lieutenant,  51. 

Hawkins,  Charles  E.,  Captain  Independence,  37,  41,  55,  60. 
Henderson,   George,   Lieutenant,    83. 
Hill,  Joseph,  56,  60. 
Hill,  W.  G.,  74,  111,  124. 
Hinton,  A.  C.,  69,  79,  80. 
Hitchcock,  L.  M.,  Lieut.,  51,  65,  68. 
Hockley,  G.  W.,  Col.,  93,  101,  107,  111,  113. 
Holford,  James,  71. 
Hornsby,  Henry,  Lieut.,  42. 
Houston,  A.,   11. 
Houston,  Samuel,  President,   17,  40,  41,  47,  49,  51,  54,  58, 

65,  66,  74,  94,  99,  101,  104,  106,  112,  113,  116,  134. 
Houston,  77. 
Howard,  G.,  gunner,  83. 
Howes,  Elijah,  43. 

Hoyt,  Captain  of  Terrible,  27;  Lieutenant  of  Brutus. 
Hubbell,  H.  A. 

Humphreys,  P.  W.,  Lieut.,  42,    147. 
Hunt,  Randall,  Esq.,  7,  9,  45. 
Hunter,  William  L.,    139. 
Hurd,  Norman,  51,  83,  98,  122,  147,  148. 
Hurd,  William  A.,  Commands  San  Felipe  >  4,   5;  Commands 

the  William  Robbins,   20-22,    24;    Captain  Brutus,   37, 

51,  56. 
Independence,  The,  32,  37-39,  53,  55-65. 


Invincible,  The,  25,  32-39,  42-51. 

Jacskon,  O.  P.,  45. 

Jackson,  Thomas  R.,   36. 

Johnson,  F.,  Lieut.,  42. 

Johnson,  J.  W.,   139. 

Johnson,  Thomas,  Judge  Advocate,   140. 

Jones,  Anson,  President,  99. 

Jones,  Levi,   76,    139. 

Julius  Caesar,  Captains  Moore  and  Lightburn,  32. 

Kelton,  O.  P.,  Dr.,  42. 

Kendrick,  H.,  139. 

Kennedy,  E.  P.,  Lieut.,  83. 

Kerr,  Peter,  21,  24. 

Lacy,  Lieut.,  51. 

Lamar,  Mirabeau  B.,  President,  70,  79,  82,  84,  93-104. 

Lansing,  J.  P.,  Lieut.,   109,    148. 

Laura,  steamboat,  footnote  5. 

Leay,    C,    83. 

Lee,  Randolph,  Lieut.,  42. 

Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal,  9-20,  65. 

Leving,  William  H.,  Lieut.,  42. 

Leving,  Purser,   55. 

Levy,  A.  M.,  Dr.,  51,  55,  60,  64. 

Lewis,  Ira  R.,  16,  20. 

Lewis,  Irvine  A.,  Lieut.,  83,  85,  97,  147-149. 

Liberty,   The,  25,   26,   32,   37-41. 

Libertador,  Mexican  Brig,   51,   62. 

Lightburn,  Captain  of  Julius  Caesar,  32. 

Lipscomb,  A.  S.,  Secretary  of  State,  86. 

Littlejohn,  E.  G.,  footnote  37. 

Little,  Pen,  The,   49. 

Lloyd,  Daniel,  42,   83. 

Logan,  Lieut,  42. 

Logan,  W.  G.,  8. 

Long,  Secretary  of  U.  S.  Navy,  27. 

Lopez,  Commodore  Mexican  Navy,  63. 

Lothrop,  J.  T.  K.,  Captain,  56,  60,  83,  109,  113,  125,  130, 

136,  148,  149. 
Love,  James,  76. 
Lubbock,  Thomas,   105,   107. 
Mabry,  James  L.,  Midshipman,  87. 
Marines,  36,  37,  51,  56,  83. 
Marion,  George,  55,  60. 
Marstella,  Captain  of  Flash,  29-31. 
Matilda,  Mexican  sloop  captured,  27. 
Maury,  W.  T.,  Purser,  83. 
McCormick,  Michael,  express  rider,  30. 
McFarlane,  W.  W.,  83.  ' 


McKinncy,  Thomas  R,  4,  5,  11,  16,  20,  25,  33,  38,  76. 

McLeod,  Col.,  103. 

Mellus,  James,  Lieut.,  42,  55,  56. 

Menard,  M.  B.,  76. 

Menard,  P.  J.,   76. 

Mendez,  Governor  of  Yucatan,   85. 

Merchant,  Texas  vessel,  77. 

Mexican  naval  vessels,   129-131. 

Minor,   L.    M.,    Midshipman,    83. 

Montezuma,  Mexican  schooner,  11,  20,  33,  42. 

Montezuma,  Mexican  steamer,    122,   128. 

Moore,  Captain  of  Julius  Caesar,  32. 

Moore,  Alex.,  Lieut.,  83,  84. 

Moore,  Edwin  Ward,  Commodore,  78-150. 

Moore,  James  W.,  Purser,  83,  84,  148. 

Morgan,  James,  footnote  37;  Commissioner,   136. 

Mutiny  on  San  Antonio,  107-111. 

Navy  Affairs  Committees,  12,  14. 

Navy,  Organization  of  First,  9-20;  end  of,  65. 

Navy,  Necessity  of,  66. 

Navy  Yard  at  Galveston,   65,   69. 

Navy,  Reason  why  not  active  in  1840,  82. 

Navy  Vessels  and  Officers  in  June,  1840,  83. 

Navy  Fights  and  Captures; 

San  Felips  captures  Correo,  5 ;  Bravo  and  Hannah  Eliza- 
abeth,  20-22;  Thomas  Toby  makes  capture,  28;  Liberty 
captures  Pelicano,  40;  capture  of  Bravo,  42;  Invincible 
captures  Pocket,  43;  Watchman,  Fanny  Butler  and  Co- 
manche  captured,  47;  Eliza  Russel  and  Abispa  captured, 
49;Invincible  fights  two  Mexican  vessels,  51;  Brutus  cap- 
tures rich  prize,  53;  Union,  Adventure  and  Telegraph, 
Mexican  schooners,  captured  by  Brutus  and  Invincible,  54; 
Correo  and  Raefaelita,  Mexican  vessels,  captured  by  Bru- 
tus and  Invincible,  54;  Mexican  vessels  destroyed,  55; 
Independence  fights  Urrea  and  Bravo,  56;  Independence 
captured  by  Mexicans,  60-63;  Austin  captures  Florentine 
and  Elizabeth,  89;  Tobasco  captured  by  Texan  Navy, 
91,  92;  Mexican  schooner  captured  at  Vera  Cruz,  92; 
Progresso  captured  by  Austin,  99-100;  Mexican  schooner 
Doloritas  captured,  1 05 ;  capture  of  Mexican  schooner  Dos 
Amigos,  1 05 ;  Austin  and  Wharton  engage  Mexican  Navy, 
off  Yucatan  April  30  and  May  16,  1843,  129-132. 

Navy,  Second,  measures  to  procure,  66. 

Navy,  act  to  lay  in  ordinary,  80. 

Navy  vessels  disposed  of,    140. 

Navy  officers,  sketch  of,  143-150. 

Negroes,  importation  of  to  Texas,  3,  4. 

Newcomb,    Lieut.,    42. 


O'Campo,  Lieut.,  6. 

O'Conner,  James,  40. 

Oceon,  steamboat,   31. 

Oceon  Queen,  31,  46. 

Officers  Texas  Navy,  sketch  of,  83,   143-150. 

Oliver,  Robert,  Purser,  83;  Captain  dies,   118. 

Oliver,  William,   83,    147,    148. 

Opie,  sloop,  30. 

Parker,  J.  O.,  Midshipman,   83. 

Parker,  J.  W.  C.,  Captain,  Marines,  83. 

Pease,  E.  M.,  Secretary  of  Council,  footnote  15. 

Pelicano,  Mexican  trading  schooner,   39. 

Peraza,  Martin  F.,  Col.,  Yucatan  Commissioner,  94-107,  123. 

Perry,  James,  Lieut.,  42. 

Pierpont,  W.  J.  D.,  Midshipman,   149. 

Pocket,  The,  43. 

Postell,  W.  R.,  Lieut.,  83,  86. 

Potomac,  The,  65,  68,  69,  75,  84. 

Potter,  Robert,  16,  29,  30,  36. 

Power,   James,    45. 

Privateers,    13. 

Progresso,  Mexican  schooner  captured,   99-100,    111. 

Pulaski,  steamship,    68. 

Raefaelita,  Mexican,    54. 

Randolph,  Lieutenant  of  Terrible,  26. 

Reiley,  James,  Col.,  140. 

Regeneradoe,  Mexican,   130. 

Richardson,  William,  Dr.,    98. 

Riley,  Henry,  51. 

Roberts,  Samuel  A.,  Secretary  of  State,  94. 

Robertson,  Arthur,  Captain  Marines,  37,  51. 

Robertson,  James  G.,  23. 

Robinson,  James  W.,  Lieutenant  Governor,  9,  35,  39. 

Royall,  R.  R.,  6,  22,  23. 

Rugeley,  John,    139. 

Runaway  scrape,  29. 

Rusk,  General  T.  J.,  46. 

Salter,  John,   83. 

San  Antonio,  schooner,  75,  79,  83,  84,  93,  97,  98,  104,  107, 

119,  121. 
San  Bernard,  schooner,  75,  83,  84-86,  90,  97-100,  104,  107, 

117-120,  137,  142. 
San  Felipe,  The,  1-9,  20. 
San  Jacinto,  Battle,  30,  57. 
San  Jacinto,  schooner,  75,  83,  84,  86,  90. 
San  Jacinto  cannon,  64. 

Santa  Anna,  Mexican  President,  30,  31,  44,  46,  58,  70,  106. 
Santa  Fe  Expedition,  103,  104. 


Schofield,  Hugh,  83. 

Scott,  J.,  8. 

Seeger,  William,  Lieut.,  83,  98;  Captain,  115,  148. 

Sever,  James,  Lieut.,  42. 

Seypert,  Thomas,  Col.,  140. 

Shaughnessey,  J.  O.,  Lieut.,  83. 

Shepherd,  William  .,  Secretary  Navy,  67. 

Sherman,  Sidney,  Major  General,   140. 

Smith,  Benjamin  F.,   16. 

Smith,  Boatswain,  42. 

Smith,  Henry,  Governor,  9,  11;  footnote  21,  22,  23,  33-35,  60 

Smith,  L.  H.,  Midshipman,   83. 

Smith,  William,  Ship's  Carpenter,   83. 

Snow,  C.  B.,  83,  136,  146,  148. 

Somers,  captures  Mexicans,  22. 

Somervell,  A.,  Brigadier  General,    140. 

Stephens,  J.  F.,  83,  147,  148. 

Sterne,  Adolphus,   8. 

Stewart,  C.  B.,  Secretary  to  Executive,   15. 

Stoneall,  John  P.,  Midshipman,  83. 

Stuart,  Ben  C,  29,  31,  83. 

Suares,  Captain  of  Thomas  Toby,   29. 

Survey  of  Texas  Coast  by  Com.  Moore,  93. 

Swartwont,  Samuel,  Hon.,  47,  53. 

Sweet,  T.  W.,  Lieut.,  83. 

Taylor,  J.  W,.  Lieut.,  56,  60;  commands  Independence,  61. 

Taylor,  T.  A.,  Captain  San  Bernard,  90. 

Telegraph,  Mexican,  54. 

Tennison,  William  A.,  Lieut.,  27,  55,  60,  69,  83,  100,  136, 

141,  146-149. 
Tenorio,  Captain,   1. 
Terrible,  Privateer,  26,  27,  59. 
Texas,  The,   77. 

Thomas  Toby,  Priavteer,   27-29. 
Thomas,  Col.,  Secretary  Treasury,  30. 
Thompson,    Alex.,    hydrographer,    65. 
Thompson,  Henry  L.,  Captain  Invincible,  42,  48,  50,  54. 
Thompson,  Thomas  M.,  Captain,  2,  3,  6,  54,  63,  64. 
Tobasco   captured,    92. 
Toby,  Thomas,  Texas  Agent,  29. 
Tod,  John  G.,  Captain,  74-77,  99,   143-146. 
Travis,  William  B.,   1. 

Treat,  Commissioner  of  Texas  to  Mexico,  38,  86,  90,  91. 
Trinity,  sloop,    75. 
Tucker,  J.  J.,  83. 

Twin  Sisters,  the  San  Jacinto  Cannon,  30. 
Ugartechea,  Colonel,  2. 
Underbill,  C.  B.,  83. 


Union,  schooner,  31;  Mexican  schooner,  54. 

Urrea,  Mexican,  56. 

Vencedor  del  Alamo,  Mexican  Brig  of  War,  31,  46,  51,  62. 

Vera  Cruzana,  Mexican  war  vessel,    1 1 . 

Waite,  Alfred  A.,  42,    148. 

Walke,  Alfred,  Midshipman,  footnote  129. 

Walker,  A.,  Midshipman,  83.  No  doubt  same  as  A.  Walke. 

Waller,   37. 

Ward,   F.,   Lieut.,   Marines,   42. 

Warren,  U.  S.  sloop,  44. 

Watchman,  Mexican  transport,  46. 

Webb,  Judge,  Commissioner  to  Mexico,  92,  139. 

Wells,  E.  F.   (T.),  42,  83;  Purser,   122,   148. 

Westren,  T.  G.,  45. 

Wezman,   E.    A.,    83. 

Wharton,  John  A.,  17,  65,  68,  77. 

Wharton,  The,  brig,  76,  83;  formerly  Dolphin,  84,  86,  107, 

113,  128,  142. 

Wheeler,  James  H.,  Midshipman,  83. 
Wheelright,   George  W.,   Captain,    37,    39,    54,    56,    60,    62, 

64,   83. 

White,   George  R.,   Midshipman,    118. 
Whiting,  Samuel,  Major,   15,   16. 
Whitmore,    Midshipman,    60. 
Whitney,  72. 

Wilbur    (D.),  T.   C,  Lieut.,    109,    148. 
William  Robbins,  privateer,  5,   16,  20-26. 
Williams,  Samuel  M.,  4,  11,  45,  68,  71-73;  note  124. 
Williamson,  William  S.,  Lieut.,  69,  83. 
Wilson,   R.,    45. 
Wood,  Thomas,  Jr.,  Lieut.,  83. 
Wright,  Frank  B.,  Lieut.,  56. 
Yates,  A.  J.,  8. 
Yellow  Stone,   32,   58. 
Yucatan   Alliance,    92-107. 
Yucatan  Expedition,    1840-41,  92. 
Yucatan  Official  Alliance,  93,  94-107,   123. 
Yucatan  Naval  Force,   85. 
Yucatan,  revolt  of,  81,  84,  85,  98. 
Zavala,  Lorenzo  de,  30,  37. 
Zavala,  The,  72,  75,  77,  79,  80,  83-87,  89-91,  106,  115. 


